Anti-tumor pharmacology of natural products targeting mitosis

Manru Huang; Caiyan Liu; Yingying Shao; Shiyue Zhou; Gaoyong Hu; Shuangshuang Yin; Weiling Pu; Haiyang Yu

doi:10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2022.0006

Abstract

Cancer has been an insurmountable problem in the history of medical science. The uncontrollable proliferation of cancer cells is one of cancer’s main characteristics, which is closely associated with abnormal mitosis. Targeting mitosis is an effective method for cancer treatment. This review summarizes several natural products with anti-tumor effects related to mitosis, focusing on targeting microtubulin, inducing DNA damage, and modulating mitosis-associated kinases. Furthermore, the main disadvantages of several typical compounds, including drug resistance, toxicity to non-tumor tissues, and poor aqueous solubility and pharmacokinetic properties, are also discussed, together with strategies to address them. Improved understanding of cancer cell mitosis and natural products may pave the way to drug development for the treatment of cancer.

keywords

Introduction

According to data reported by International Agency for Research on Cancer, approximately 19.3 million new cancer cases and 10 million cancer deaths occurred worldwide in 2020¹. Although effective drugs for cancer treatment are continually being developed, cancer mortality is increasing each year². Compared with normal cells, cancer cells have characteristics of uncontrollable proliferation, evasion of growth inhibitors, invasion and metastasis, and evasion of immune surveillance, thus making cancer difficult to cure and resulting in poor prognosis³. The uncontrollable proliferation of cancer cells, a major characteristic of cancer, is closely associated with abnormal mitosis. The mitosis of cancer cells is often unregulated, and cell division is accelerated by cancer cell evasion of growth inhibitory factors⁴. Targeting proliferation or mitosis are effective methods for cancer treatment. Many natural products exert favorable anti-tumor effects through regulating mitosis. The classical anti-mitotic drugs derived from natural products, including periwinkle alkaloids or paclitaxel-like drugs and their derivatives, have a wide range of clinical uses⁵.

Microtubules are involved in segregation during mitosis in eukaryotic cells. Microtubules are regulated primarily by polymerization kinetics, and their polymerization occurs through a nucleation-extension mechanism⁶. Targeting microtubules is currently used to prevent tumor cell mitosis and retard tumor development in clinical therapy⁷. DNA damage is directly associated with normal mitotic processes. If DNA damage is not repaired before mitosis occurs, the probability of chromosomal mutations is greatly increased, and the damaged DNA can enter daughter cells through faulty mitosis, and eventually induce cellular lesions or death^8,9. Thus, promoting DNA damage in cancer cells and inhibiting repair can decrease cancer cell proliferation or promote cancer cell death. The growth of cancer cells is faster than that of normal cells, because cancer cells can avoid the inhibition of growth factors and unscheduled re-entry into the cell cycle¹⁰. Beyond microtubules and DNA damage, mitosis-associated kinases are another important aspect of mitosis that can be targeted. These kinases include cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) and aurora kinases (AURKs). Numerous CDKs regulate cell mitosis through binding cyclin proteins. The first CDK inhibitor to enter clinical studies was flavopiridol, derived from the native Indian plant rohitukine¹¹. AURKs are major serine/threonine kinases in mitosis, which are involved in several events such as centrosome maturation and segregation, spindle assembly and maintenance, chromosome segregation, and cytoplasmic segregation. Studies have shown that inhibition of AURK expression or activity inhibits the proliferation, migration, and invasion of cancer cells¹². Studies are identifying an increasing number of natural products that downregulate AURKs, and the modification of AURKA inhibitors may be a promising research direction.

This review summarizes several natural products with anti-tumor effects related to mitosis, focusing on targeting microtubulin, DNA damage, and mitosis-associated kinases. We also briefly summarize the mechanisms of mitosis targeting by these natural products in Table 1, and clinically developed antitumor drugs targeting mitosis derived from natural products in Table 2. Improved understanding of cancer cell mitosis and natural products may pave the way to further drug development for the treatment of cancer.

View this table:

Table 1

Summary of anti-tumor natural products targeting mitosis

View this table:

Table 2

Summary of clinical drugs derived from natural products that target mitosis

Microtubule

Microtubules in eukaryotic cells are polar cytoskeletal structures with crucial roles in cell mitosis, intracellular transport, and many other key cellular events. The cortex of microtubules is often composed of 13 protofilaments, mainly comprising tubulin heterodimers (α- and β-tubulin)¹³. Each heterodimer is arranged in a head-to-tail combination, thus forming directional microtubules and giving rise to the polar character of microtubules. The terminal with β-tubulin is the plus end, and the terminal with α-tubulin is the minus end⁶. Microtubules are hollow tubes that span the entire cell, and facilitate mitosis or intracellular transport¹³. Microtubules compose the spindle and are involved in all processes of mitosis. The kinetochore microtubules of the spindle emanate from the pole at one end and bind the centromeric chromatin at the other end¹⁴. Chromosomes that undergo replication have two mitoses, and bind two microtubules facing opposite spindle poles, thus achieving biorientation¹⁵. The aberrant expression of tubulin or microtubule-regulating proteins often occurs during tumor development⁷. For example, the high expression of β-microtubulin, particularly the βIII isoform, promotes tumor differentiation and metastasis. In addition, elevated levels of βIII-microtubulin affect resistance to broad-spectrum drugs and non-microtubule-targeting drugs^16,17. Natural products targeting microtubule proteins are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Natural products targeting microtubule proteins. Microtubules are composed of 2 types of microtubule proteins, α- and β-tubules, in a directed arrangement, which further form the spindle. The movement of microtubules is regulated, and inhibition or stabilization of microtubules interferes with mitosis. Paclitaxel is a microtubule stabilizer that binds the Taxane site of β-microtubule proteins. Vincristine, colchicine, podophyllotoxin, and aplyronine A are microtubule destabilizers that bind different sites of β-microtubule proteins. Pironetin acts on α-microtubule proteins and exerts microtubule depolymerizing effects.

Paclitaxel (Taxol)

Paclitaxel is a secondary metabolite isolated from the bark of the Pacific yew Taxusbrevifolia. Paclitaxel promotes the assembly of tubulin into microtubules and prevents the depolymerization of microtubules, thus further promoting the formation of stable microtubules from microtubulin, and effectively blocking the cell cycle at G2/M phase, preventing mitosis, and ultimately inhibiting proliferation or promoting apoptosis of cancer cells¹⁸. Recent research has shown that paclitaxel does not directly inhibit cell mitosis but instead induces the production of multipolar mitotic spindles that mediate unbalanced or mis-segregated chromosome distribution^19,20. This abnormality leads to the formation of aneuploid progeny, loss of important chromosomes in the tumor cells, and ultimately cell death²⁰. This mechanism partly explains the reason for paclitaxel insensitivity. Some clinical studies have shown that only approximately half of patients with breast cancer treated with paclitaxel have tumor shrinkage or disappearance. In patients who do not respond to paclitaxel, no clinically relevant paclitaxel is detected, and the mitosis of tumor cells does not cease^21,22. In paclitaxel-sensitive patients, multipolar spindles form in tumor cells. When the abnormal multipolar spindle is maintained, the tumor cells die. After restoration of bipolar spindles, cancer cells usually become more resistant to paclitaxel.

Although paclitaxel is a highly successful antitumor drug in clinical practice, its disadvantages, such as poor water solubility, poor targeting, and strong non-selective toxic effects, have greatly hindered the development of new paclitaxel drugs²³. Taxol, a first-generation paclitaxel preparation, has poor solubility, a short half-life, a long injection time, low bioavailability, and a tendency to cause allergic reactions^24–26. Several new dosage forms of paclitaxel are available on the market. For example, albumin-bound paclitaxel, whose trade name is Abraxane, requires only half an hour to inject and can be used to treat breast cancer^27,28. In 2007, Samyang launched Cynviloq, the first paclitaxel micelle formulation marketed worldwide. This dosage form has not only extended the half-life but also improved drug solubility. Paclical, which has a much higher drug loading than Cynviloq, was introduced to treat expanded indications²⁹. Paclitaxel liposomes for injection are yet another formulation of paclitaxel that can be used as a first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer, or in combination with cisplatin^30,31. In 2016, the Korean drug regulatory agency launched the world’s first paclitaxel oral solution (Liporaxel) for gastric cancer³². Subsequently, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals developed Oraxol, an innovative oral formulation of paclitaxel combined with ansquetta mesylate. Clinical studies have shown that Oraxol locally inhibits the activity of p-GP in the intestinal tract, thus improving drug efficacy while decreasing adverse effects elsewhere in the body^33,34. After the development of new dosage forms of paclitaxel, paclitaxel derivatives followed. Sanofi developed Taxotere to address the problems of poor solubility and allergic reactions of paclitaxel, but this drug tends to cause permanent hair loss^35,36. In China, in addition to Taxotere, which has been marketed, Jevtana, Larotaxel, Milataxel, and Ortataxel are under clinical trials.

Vincristine

Vincristine is a potent agent with well-defined effects on hematologic disorders and several types of solid tumors. As a microtubule-destabilizing drug, vincristine impairs the microtubule network by binding the Vinca domain in the β-tubulin subunit, thus inhibiting the polymerization of microtubules and arresting mitosis in phase M³⁷. Vincristine forms a wedge at the dimer interface between α- and β-microtubulin while bending the microtubule growth axis³⁸. Low concentrations restrain mitosis without depolymerization of the spindle in HeLa cells, whereas high concentrations induce rearrangement of spindle microtubules and centrosome rupture, thus arresting mitosis in M phase³⁹. The transcription factor MYC, a key regulator of cellular proliferation, has been reported to be associated with highly aggressive cancers and poor prognosis in patients with cancer⁴⁰. MYC overexpression induces mitotic spindle assembly defects through microtubule nucleation and organization⁴¹. Phosphorylation of MYC occurs in mitosis, but a fraction of non-phosphorylated MYC binds the microtubules of the mitotic spindle^42,43. Vincristine has been found to destabilize wild-type MYC during mitosis. Furthermore, a strong inhibitory effect of vincristine has been observed in a population of lymphoma cells with high MYC expression⁴⁴. The above results indicate that vincristine may be a good candidate in the treatment of MYC-driven malignancies.

Vincristines are typical antitumor drugs that target microtubules; the 4 main members are vinblastine, vincristine, vinorelbine, and vindesine^45,46. Because the bioavailability of these 4 drugs is very low, they are administered mainly intravenously as sulfate and tartaric acid in clinical practice. Vinflunine (Javlor), a semi-synthetic derivative of periwinkle alkaloids, is a novel bifluorinated microtubule inhibitor for the treatment of bladder cancer that has failed to respond to chemotherapy^47–49.

Colchicine

Colchicine, another microtubule-targeting agent (MTA), is a tricyclic alkaloid extracted from plants of the genus Colchicum (autumn crocus). This classical anti-mitotic drug binds soluble tubulin at colchicine site between α- and β-subunits, thus irreversibly forming tubulin-colchicine complexes, which induce many conformational changes in tubulin, disrupt further microtubule polymerization, and finally block mitosis at metaphase and induce cell death⁵⁰. A detailed kinetic analysis of the inhibitory interaction has shown that tubulin-colchicine complexes bind the ends of the microtubules and prevent further addition to microtubules by sterically blocking terminal tubulin dimer growth⁵⁰. The mitotic effect of colchicine mediated cell division is only temporary, and when the colchicine inside cells is metabolized, mitosis continues. In addition, the sensitivity of cells to colchicine varies according to its concentration. At low concentrations, colchicine arrests microtubule growth, whereas at higher concentrations, it promotes microtubule depolymerisation⁵⁰. The severe toxicity of colchicine at high doses in normal tissues limits its clinical use as an anti-tumor agent^51,52. Because colchicine has high anti-proliferative activity and promising clinical prospects, many colchicine analogues have been synthesized to avoid adverse effects⁵³. However, because the effective dose of colchicine is close to the toxic dose, it is not commonly used clinically⁵². The main clinical applications of colchicine are currently the treatment of ventilation and cardiovascular diseases⁵⁴. Because of the high toxicity of colchicine, experimental studies have synthesized derivatives with substituted functional groups on the a-ring (methoxy), b-ring (acetamide), and c-ring (methoxy) for potentiation and detoxification⁵⁵.

Podophyllotoxin

Podophyllotoxin, an aryltetralin-type lignan isolated from species of Podophyllum, is widely used to treat a variety of cancers including liver cancer, lung cancer, and neuroblastoma⁵⁶. Similarly to colchicine, podophyllotoxin binds the colchicine site at the interface of α- and β-tubulin, inhibits the assembly of tubulin into microtubules, blocks the cell cycle in G2/M phase, and finally leads to mitosis arrest^57,58. However, clinical therapy is severely limited because of systemic toxicity effects. Recently, modification of podophyllotoxin has enabled clinical application; the most clinically used drugs are etoposide and teniposide, which are glycosylated at the C-4 position^59,60. Because podophyllotoxin is an effective targeted microtubule drug, drug development has continued. Deoxypodophyllotoxin (DPT) injection is currently under development in China in phase I trials. Various in vitro experimental studies on DPT have indicated its strong killing effect on a variety of human-derived tumor cells⁶¹. In vivo experiments have shown that DPT is effective against a variety of drug-resistant tumor strains, thus making it a valuable new antitumor drug⁶².

Aplyronine A (ApA)

ApA, a marine natural product originally isolated from Aplysiakurodai sea hares, exerts antitumor activity by inducing interactions between actin and microtubulin^63–65. Actin is a class of globular multifunctional proteins that form microfilaments and are essential in diverse cellular processes, including movement and contraction. The dynamic balance between microtubules and actin is highly important for the stable morphology and mitosis of mammalian cells⁶⁶. ApA specifically induces microtubule breakdown in the presence of actin. Conformation analysis of ApA on actin has indicated that the C13 methoxy group of ApA not only directly interacts with Glu334 of actin through the C9 hydroxyl group but also interacts with Arg147 through water molecules⁶⁶. One study has indicated that ApA and actin synergistically inhibit microtubule polymerization⁶⁷. ApA binds actin inserts its aliphatic tail into the actin molecule and binds the hydrophobic cleft consisting of actin subdomains 1 and 3, thus creating an actin-ApA complex⁶⁸. The complex may further interact with microtubule protein heterodimers (released from the cytoplasm) and form a ternary complex, which microtubule polymerization⁶⁵.

Pironetin

Pironetin, a Streptomyces polyketide metabolite, is a microtubule destabilizer that blocks cell mitosis in G2/M phase by inhibiting microtubule protein polymerization⁶⁹. Unlike most MTAs, including paclitaxel, vincristine, colchicine, laulimalide, and medensin, pironetin is the only agent crystallographically characterized to bind solely to α-tubulin. Both α- and β-microtubulin bind GTP, but only β-microtubulin has GTPase activity and can hydrolyze GTP to GDP. Consequently, drugs binding the β-subunit are rapidly resistant. In contrast, the α-subunit has no GTPase activity and is not affected by mutations in β-microtubulin. Drugs targeting α-microtubulin have high clinical value. Pironetin inhibits the binding of radiolabeled vinblastine to tubulin, and has a stronger affinity for tubulin than vinblastine⁷⁰. Researchers have found that pironetin disrupts the longitudinal contacts between microtubulin heterodimers and that the disruption may be the basis for promoting microtubule depolymerization. A re-examination of the molecular structure of pironetin has confirmed that pironetin covalently binds Cys316 of α-microtubulin, thus refuting the previous conclusion that it covalently binds Lys352^70,71. The residues on both sides of Cys316 on the S8 chain differ from the side chain structures of Cys316 and Leu318, which are necessary for the binding of pironetin⁷¹. The distortion of the precise position of Glu254 and the resultant lower GTPase activity of β-tubulin may be an additional mechanism through which pironetin destabilizes the assembly of tubulin into microtubules⁷¹.

MTAs interact with tubulin, thus leading to cell death by altering microtubule dynamics. Natural MTAs, such as paclitaxel and vincristine, have long been used in cancer treatment⁷². We summarized the effects and mechanism of natural products targeting microtubulin, including paclitaxel, vincristine, colchicine, podophyllotoxin, ApA, and pironetin. Paclitaxel is a representative microtubule stabilizer that can result in the formation of aneuploid progeny by inducing multilevel spindle production, thus leading to tumor cell death. Others drugs include microtubule inhibitors, which block microtubule polymerization and disrupt microtubules and consequently mitosis. The special compound is pironetin, a recently discovered inhibitor of α-microtubulin, which disrupts the longitudinal contacts between microtubule protein heterodimers, thereby promoting microtubule depolymerization. Although MTAs are potent anti-tumoral drugs, their resistance and dose-limiting toxicity limit their clinical efficacy. To address the shortcomings of microtubule-targeted drugs, researchers have proposed the concept of dual-target microtubulin inhibitors, in which microtubulin inhibitors are combined with other antitumor drugs to achieve synergistic effects^73,74. In recent years, to overcome the resistance and toxic effects of microtubulin inhibitors, particularly those developed from natural products, researchers have gradually focused on the development of dual-targeted drugs, such as paclitaxel dual-targeted nano-drugs^75–78. The development of dual-targeted microtubule protein inhibitors is an area of great promise.

DNA damage

DNA damage is a permanent alteration of DNA nucleotide sequences caused by endogenous or exogenous factors, including spontaneous damage to DNA molecules, by-products of cellular metabolism, exogenous free radicals, and topological changes triggered by physical or chemical damage. DNA damage has been recognized as the underlying cause of many diseases, including cancer. Types of DNA damage include nucleotide mutations, substitutions, deletions, insertions, bulky adducts, single-strand breaks, and double-stand breaks (DSBs)^79,80. DNA damage leads to genomic instability and induces functional mutations in oncogenes or tumor-suppressor genes, which are a causative factor for tumorigenesis⁸¹. DNA damage evokes responses by multiple repair mechanisms and signaling pathways. The DNA damage response (DDR) involves various intra- and inter-cellular signaling events and enzymatic activities that lead to cell-cycle arrest, regulation of DNA replication, and DNA damage repair⁸². Because genomic instability is a pervasive characteristic of tumor cells, DDR defects can serve as therapeutic targets. DNA damaging chemotherapies have been used in clinical cancer chemotherapy for decades, and include drugs that induce covalent crosslinks between DNA bases, drugs that attach alkyl groups to bases, and drugs that cause single-strand breaks or DSBs by targeting topoisomerase (Topo) I or II enzymes⁸³. The natural products targeting DNA damage are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Natural products targeting DNA damage. DNA damage and repair (DDR) are closely associated with mitosis, and many natural products have been found to interfere with DNA damage or DDR. Camptothecin (CPT) directly binds DNA as a topoisomerase inhibitor. Sulforaphane (SFN) inhibits HDAC activity and enhances acetyltransferase expression, thus further causing DNA damage. Resveratrol (RSV) induces ROS accumulation, thereby leading to base double strand breakage. Piperine (PIP) inhibits the expression of DNA polymerase and prevents DDR. PIP also enhances GST, QR, and UDP-GT, and indirectly decreases DNA damage.

Camptothecin (CPT)

CPT is a pentacyclic alkaloid first isolated from Camptotheca acuminate. CPT is a typical TopoI inhibitor that induces S and G2 phase arrest. DNA TopoI resolves the tension caused during the winding and release of the DNA helix by forming a cleavage complex (TopoI covalent complex) that produces a transient DNA single-strand break, thus repairing the double-helix structure of DNA. CPT binds at the interface between TopoI and DNA and inhibits TopoI by binding to the Topo I-DNA complex⁸⁴. TopoI inhibition of CPT is required for binding the TopoI/DNA covalent complex and forming a ternary complex that prevents rejoining of the broken DNA^85,86. Early studies have demonstrated that CPT acts mainly on the DNA synthesis phase (S phase). CPT also affects pre-G1 phase and late-G2 phase, to a lesser extent than S phase⁸⁷. The targets of CPT vary by concentration: low concentrations of CPT act on G2/M phase, whereas increasing concentrations block more cells in S phase⁸⁸. Treatment with 25-nM CPT delays replication by several hours, whereas 1-μM CPT leads to a persistent replication block and massive cell death. Nanomolar concentrations (low doses) of CPT have been found to stimulate replication-fork slowing and reversal, whereas at high doses (micromolar levels), DSB formation is prevalent⁸⁹. Mitotic arrest deficient 2 (Mad2), a mitotic checkpoint protein, is responsible for verifying the attachment of the mitophagus to the spindle⁹⁰. CPT upregulates Mad2 through the Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK)-mediated SP1 pathway, and promotes microtubule protein polymerization and autophagy, thus leading to mitotic arrest and cell death⁹¹. Because of the poor solubility and severe toxicity of CPT, more effective CPT derivatives have been developed. Topotecan and irinotecan, water-soluble analogs, have been approved for treating common human cancer types^92,93. Irinotecan and topotecan are semi-synthetic derivatives of CPT; irinotecan is the first-line drug for advanced colorectal cancer, and topotecan is a drug indicated for the treatment of breast cancer^94,95. The CPT derivatives exhibit strong antitumor activity and low toxic adverse effects. Other marketed CPT derivatives, including hydroxylCPT and exatecan, have been tested in clinical trials and found to strongly block the effects of DNA synthesis in tumor cells^96,97. Rubitecan, a second-generation topoisomerase inhibitor, is used to treat blood cancers and a variety of solid tumors⁹⁸.

Piperine (PIP)

PIP is an acinnamamide alkaloid extracted from Piper nigrum and Piper longum, a commonly used spice⁹⁹. PIP consists of 2 heterocycles linked by an aliphatic diene system, a structure that enables PIP to modulate multiple targets¹⁰⁰. PIP exerts anti-tumor effects through a variety of mechanisms, such as inducing G1 cell cycle arrest¹⁰¹, inducing abnormal DNA structure, inducing ROS production and consequently disrupting redox homeostasis¹⁰², inhibiting tumor angiogenesis¹⁰³, and inducing tumor cell autophagy.¹⁰⁴. PIP directly binds the minor grooves of DNA¹⁰⁵. Recent research has indicated that PIP shows specificity for G-quadruplex DNA and binds the DNA sequence of the c-myc promoter region (Pu24T). Thus, the abnormal DNA tetraspiral DNA molecule structure causes apoptosis¹⁰⁶. In addition, in melanoma cells, PIP decreases the expression of DNA polymerase β, an enzyme that plays a role in the repair of DSBs, and prevents the repair of DNA damage. PIP also activates checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1) and causes G1 phase cell cycle arrest¹⁰⁷. Furthermore, PIP is well known for its ability to regulate metabolism enzymes, such as cytochrome P450. In an experimental model of benzo(a)pyrene [B(a)p]-induced lung cancer, PIP has been found to enhance the expression of detoxification enzymes, such as glutenzyme detoxification enzyme (GST), anthracene reductase (QR), and UDP-borate transferase (UDP-GT), thus indirectly decreasing DNA damage¹⁰⁸.

Sulforaphane (SFN)

SFN, an isothiocyanate found in Brassicaceae vegetables, particularly broccoli, is recognized for its antioxidant capacity and anticancer activity¹⁰⁹. SFN exhibits cytotoxic activity through several mechanisms including inducing detoxifying enzyme production, inducing ROS production, cell cycle arrest, apoptosis, and epigenetic regulation. Researchers have found that SFN inhibits histone deacetylase (HDAC) activity and enhances acetyltransferase expression, thus further causing DNA damage. Importantly, colon cancer cells are far more susceptible than non-cancer cells to SNF-induced DNA damage¹¹⁰. Myzak et al.¹¹¹ first reported that SFN inhibits the activity of HDAC itself without altering the protein level of HDAC and β-catenin. HDAC inhibition has also been reported to disrupt the cell cycle in the G2 phase and interfere with the mitotic spindle checkpoint¹¹², effects also caused by SFN. SFN upregulates CDK1 and cyclin B1 in HepG2 cells, which form a complex responsible for the cell cycle transition from G2 to mitosis. The cyclin B1-CDK1 maintenance induced by SFN causes misalignment of chromosomes to the spindle, thus arresting mitosis at prometaphase¹¹³. SFN-induced ROS generation is another important mechanism causing DNA damage and tumor cell apoptosis. For example, SFN inhibits and disrupts redox homeostasis by depleting glutathione (GSH), thereby inducing ROS production. The increase in expression of γH2AX, a DNA damage marker, after treatment with SFN, indicates the occurrence of DNA damage and a subsequent G0/G1 phase block in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma cells¹¹⁴. In fact, SFN exerts dichotomous effects in ROS production. SFN is also an indirect ROS scavenger through enhancing nuclear factor E2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) activity. SFN promotes the nuclear accumulation of Nrf2, which acts as a transcriptional activator via antioxidant response elements¹¹⁵.

Resveratrol (RSV)

RSV, a natural polyphenolic compound found in foods including grapes, berries, peanuts, and red wine, has potent anti-inflammatory, anti-bacterial, and anti-oxidant activities, and also has preventive and therapeutic effects on various cancers, as demonstrated in clinical trials^116,117. In human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells, RSV induces DNA damage, mainly targeting mutant cancer cells without affecting normal cells, a phenomenon that is associated with Smad4¹¹⁸. In colon cancer models, RSV single treatment induces DDR correlated with S-phase delay and apoptosis; however, prolonged treatments lead to stable resistance which is triggered by ROS over-production. Research has indicated the importance of RSV-induced ROS production and the indirect DNA-damaging effects, as well as the long-term adaptation of cancer cells toward oxidative stress¹¹⁹. In extra nodal natural killer cell/T-cell lymphoma, an aggressive lymphoma with poor prognosis, RSV blocks the cell cycle in S-phase by activating the DDR pathway via upregulating the expression of Zta (also referred to as BZLF1, ZEBRA, EB1) of Epstein-Barr virus. The mechanism of DDR activation may involve an ATM/Chk2/p53-dependent pathway^120,121. Etoposide is an antitumor agent that acts on DNA TopoII, thus causing DNA strand breaks; this chemotherapeutic agent impedes DNA repair¹²². Importantly, RSV synergistically activates the DDR pathway with etoposide, thus suppressing cell proliferation and promoting apoptosis¹²³. In addition, studies have shown that RSV acts synergistically with etoposide, a DNA TopoII inhibitor, thereby causing DSBs, activating the DDR, and promoting apoptosis¹²⁴.

DNA damage occurs in gene mutations and cancer development, and subsequently further activates the DDR to repair the damage. If the repair is not completed before mitosis, the damage is passed on to daughter cells and may lead to cellular senescence, apoptosis, and even cancer. Genomic instability is a feature of cancer cells that makes them susceptible to DNA damage. Targeting DNA damage and DDR inhibition holds promise for exploiting this defect in cancer cells, and the development of DNA damage inducers and targeted inhibition of DDR may lead to favorable anti-tumor treatments. The roles of natural products in DNA damage are diverse. Some compounds tend to induce ROS accumulation, thus leading to base double bond breakage; examples include PIP, carotenoids, and RSV. These compounds also indirectly cause DNA damage in tumor cells by regulating other proteins; their effects include the inhibitory effect of PIP on DNA polymerase β and the down-regulation of deacetylase by carotenoids. CPT plays a crucial role in the induction of DNA damage via directly binding DNA as a typical topoisomerase inhibitor. These natural products indirectly affect the mitosis of tumor cells by promoting DNA damage, thus leading to cell death. However, the specific mechanisms of most natural products in DNA damage remain unclear, and the identification of specific molecular targets is lacking.

Mitosis-associated kinases

In addition to targeting microtubules and targeting DNA damage, as described above, another highly important strategy is targeting mitosis-associated kinases. Mitosis cannot proceed properly without many protein phosphorylation events, which are regulated by protein kinases^125,126. The protein kinases described in this review are CDK and AURK, which are frequently overexpressed in cancer cells and result in uncontrolled proliferation. In addition, recent studies have found that many natural products directly control the mitotic process of cancer cells by regulating these 2 kinases.

CDKs

CDKs drive the cell cycle primarily through chemotaxis on serine/threonine proteins, and act synergistically with cyclins, important factors in the regulation of the cell cycle. The cell division cycle is a strictly controlled process that leads to the duplication of genomic DNA and the reproduction of 2 daughter cells. The cell cycle is divided into 4 main phases: (1) G1 (gap 1) phase, known as prophase synthesis, which involves the synthesis of RNA and ribosomes in preparation for S phase; (2) S (synthesis) phase, involving synthesis of DNA and histones; (3) G2 (gap 2) phase, involving late DNA synthesis and preparation for mitosis; and (4) M (mitosis) phase, in which the cell divides the duplicated DNA and cellular components equally between daughter cells¹²⁷. The cell cycle involves numerous CDKs, which form complexes with cyclin proteins and subsequently regulate cell mitosis¹²⁸. Specific CDK–cyclin complexes drive various events in a sequential and orderly manner. During G1 phase, cyclin D senses mitogenic signals, its expression increases and it binds CDK4/6; the complex formed subsequently phosphorylates and inactivates the retinoblastoma (RB) family proteins. The partial inactivation of RB proteins allows for the expression of E-type cyclins (E1 and E2), which bind CDK2. CDK2–cyclin E complexes further phosphorylate and completely inactivate RBs, thereby releasing more E2F (a transcription factor) and activating the G1/S checkpoint^129,130. CDK2 is subsequently activated by cyclin A, then drives the transition from S to G2 phase. In S phase, the accumulatied CDK2-cyclin A complex phosphorylates tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cyclase, thus enhancing glycolysis and providing energy for DNA replication^129,131. Finally, CDK1 is activated by cyclin A and consequently promotes mitotic entry. After nuclear envelope rupture, cyclin A is degraded, thereby promoting the formation of the CDK1-cyclin B complex, which drives the cell cycle to mitosis^128,129.

The cell cycle is commonly dysregulated in neoplasia, and the specific transcription of cell cycle proteins is usually aberrantly activated; cells subsequently undergo continued proliferation or unscheduled re-entry into the cell cycle¹³². In most tumors, CCND family members (encoding cyclin D) and CDK4/6 are overexpressed, thus eliminating RB-mediated cell cycle inhibition and leading to uncontrolled cell proliferation^133,134. In addition, tumor development is usually accompanied by the up-regulation of cyclin E, which has a high affinity toward CDK2. The role of cyclin E in tumor development has been fully confirmed, whereas the role of CDK2 has not yet been elucidated¹³⁵. Many studies have indicated that CDK2 inhibition retards malignancies, such as melanoma, ovarian cancer, and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. The expression of cell cycle-related proteins is altered to some extent in most cancer cells, such as cyclin A, cell division cycle gene7 (CDC7), cyclin B-CDK1, and cyclin H-CDK7¹³⁶. Natural products targeting CDKs are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3

Natural products regulating the cell cycle. An organized cell cycle is the basis for cell division. Many natural products act as cell cycle blockers via targeting cyclin proteins and CDKs. Licorice, hinokitiol, cryptotanshinone (CTS), berberine, ascleposide, and garcinol block the cell cycle in G0/G1 phase. Genistein blocks the cell cycle in G2/M phase and promotes apoptosis. Hinokitiol also decreases CDK7, cyclin D1, and cyclin A2, thereby blocking S phase.

Licorice

Glycyrrhiza uralensis Fisch (licorice) is a versatile herb whose active coupounds are mainly flavonoids and triterpene saponins. Licorice has anti-tumor effects through modulating the cell cycle or the immune microenvironment. A previous report has indicated that licorice inhits the proliferation of H1975 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cells and MCF-7 breast cancer cells in a dose-dependent manner, potentially through the down-regulation of cyclin D1-CDK4 complex expression, and blocks tumor cells in G0/G1 phase. The down-regulation of cyclin D1-CDK4 increases antigen presentation and induces infiltration of CD8⁺ T cells into tumors, thereby exerting anti-tumor effects¹³⁷. Licochalcone A, a flavonoid isolated from licorice with anti-tumor properties, has been reported to inhibit the proliferation of HepG2 cells by terminating the cell cycle at the G2/M transition, as characterized by the decreased expression of cyclin B1 and CDK1¹³⁸.

Hinokitiol

Hinokitiol, a natural monosteroidal compound with chro-phenolic ketone structure extracted from the trunks of Chamaecyparisobtusa, is often used as a potent fungicide. In recent years, hinokitiol has been found to have notable anti-tumor activity, including inhibiting tumor cell migration, promoting cell apoptosis, and inducing autophagy, thus highlighting its great potential for treating tumors. Hinokitiol treatment of endometrial carcinoid cells increases p53, decreases cyclin D1 and CDK4, and blocks cell growth in G0/G1 phase¹³⁹. In human hepatocellular carcinoma cells, hinobinol mainly causes a decrease in CDK7, cyclin D1, and cyclin A2, thus blocking the S phase¹⁴⁰.

Cryptotanshinone (CTS)

Cryptotanshinone (CTS), a lipophilic compound extracted from Salvia miltiorrhiza Bunge, shows anti-tumor activity. In vitro experiments have indicated that CTS inhibits the viability of human NSCLC cells (A549 and H460), partly via down-regulating cyclin A/D and CDK2/4, thus blocking the cell cycle in G0/G1 phase¹⁴¹. Furthermore, CTS down-regulates IAP family proteins and apoptosis inhibitors, and promotes apoptosis, thus indicating a close relationship between CTS-induced cell cycle arrest and apoptosis.

Genistein

Genistein, an isoflavone extracted from Genista tinctoria Linn, exerts anti-tumor effects through apoptosis, cell cycle arrest, and inhibition of angiogenesis¹⁴². Genistein promotes apoptosis by inhibiting the activation of the PI3K/Akt signaling pathway. Cyclin A/B downregulation and binding CDK2 and CDC2 then block the cell cycle in G2/M phase and promote apoptosis¹⁴³. In addition, in other tumor types, genistein indirectly plays a different role as a CDK inhibitor. In uterine smooth muscle tumors, genistein promotes expression of p15, a CDK inhibitor¹⁴⁴. In colorectal cancer, the action of genistein is associated with the elimination of CDK2 phosphorylation¹⁴⁵. In ovarian cancer, genistein mainly inhibits cyclin D1 expression but enhances p21 expression¹⁴⁶.

Berberine

Berberine is a natural quaternary alkaloid isolated from Coptis chinensis Franch, with anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant, and anti-tumor effects¹⁴⁷. In vitro, berberine has been found to significantly decrease the expression of cyclin D1, D2, and E in DU145 human prostate cancer cells, with the most pronounced effect on cyclin D1. The down-regulation of CDK2, CDK4, and particularly CDK6 has also been observed¹⁴⁸. The inhibition of cyclin D and CDKs by berberine indicates inhibition of of cyclin D-CDK6 complex formation, thus blocking the cell cycle in G1 phase.

Ascleposide

Ascleposide, a natural cardiac steroid lactone isolated from Saussurea lappa, has been found to inhibit DU145 prostate cancer cell growth¹⁴⁹. Ascleposide downregulates the expression of cyclin D1, cyclin A, and CDK4 in a dose-dependent manner, and also downregulaets c-Myc (an early identified oncogenes) in human prostate cancer cells¹⁵⁰. C-myc indirectly regulates the cell cycle through the dissociation of the CDK repressor protein p21 from the CDK4/6-cyclin D complex¹⁵¹. Therefore, ascleposide exerts indirect and direct effects on cell cycle regulation, and decreases the G1 distribution of cells while increasing the proportion of cells in G2/M and sub-G1 phase¹⁵⁰. The p21 and p27 Cip/Kip proteins are crucial CDK-interacting protein/kinase inhibitory proteins in mitotis¹⁵². Interestingly, ascleposide downregulates these Cip/Kip proteins rather than upregulating them¹⁵⁰, possibly because p21 and p27 resist the apoptotic response in cancer cells^153,154, thus explaining the ascleposide-induced p21 and p27 downregulation, and anticancer activity in CRPC cells¹⁵⁰.

Others

Garcinol, a polyisoprene benzophenone extracted from the fruit of Garcinia indica, exerts anti-inflammatory and anti-cancer activities. Garcinol induces decreases in cyclin D1, D3, CDK2, and CDK4, and increases in cyclin E and CDK6 in human NSCLC cells (H1299)¹⁵⁵. In addition, Garcinol upregulates the CDK repressor proteins p21^Waf1/cip1 and p27^Kip1, thus inhibiting cyclin-CDK complex assembly. P21^Waf1/cip1 knockdown results in a complete cell cycle block in G1 phase, thus indicating that the garcinol-induced G1 block in H1299 cells is achieved by upregulation of p21^Waf1/cip1 protein expression. However, the effect is unclear in H460 cells¹⁵⁵. Therefore, the mechanism underlying garcinol-induced cell cycle arrest requires further investigation. Similar G1 arrest by 13-O-acetylsolstitialin A and Tetrandrine has been observed, both of which act on the cyclin D1-CDK4 complex: 13-O-acetylsolstitialin A decreases the expression of cyclin D1 and CDK4¹⁵⁶, whereas Tetrandrine binds the cyclin D1-CDK4 complex and forms hydrogen bonds¹⁵⁷.

Many natural products also induce G2/M arrest, but their related molecular mechanisms are not well studied. Examples include Polygonatum cyrtonema Hua¹⁵⁸, Paris chinensis dioscin¹⁵⁹, Lycorisaurea agglutinin¹⁶⁰, Strychni Semen (ESS)¹⁶¹, and 6-shogaol¹⁶². Some cause clear S phase arrest by downregualting cyclin A and CDK2 (Juglanthraquinone C¹⁶³ and tea polyphenols¹⁶⁴) or activating CDK repressor proteins (Litchi chinensis Sonn^165–167 and Gynostemma L¹⁶⁸).

Normal progression of the cell cycle is necessary to ensure that mitosis occurs without error. The disruption of cell cycle control is a common feature in human cancers¹⁶⁹. Many natural products can block the cell cycle, including licorice, Hinokitiol, and Cryptotanshinone. However, most studies have been limited to examining their effects on cyclins and kinases, whereas in-depth molecular studies are lacking. Moreover, the effects of most compounds have not been confirmed in vivo.

In recent years, clinical development of natural product-derived CDK inhibitors has become more difficult, although increasing natural products have been discovered. Flavopiridol, the first inhibitor of CDKs to enter clinical trials worldwide, is a semi-synthetic flavonoid derivative¹⁷⁰. However, in phase II clinical trials, researchers have found that it did not show single drug activity in a variety of cancers but showed very significant dose-limiting toxicity¹⁷¹. Consequently, Flavopiridol has not been marketed to date. UCN-01 is a derivative of staurosporine that is currently in phase II clinical trials. It binds protein kinase competitively with ATP and has a good selective effect on kinases¹⁷². Modification of the structure of astrosporin has led to the discovery of a derivative with multi-target kinase inhibitory activity, midostaurin, which was successfully marketed in 2017¹⁷³. Roscovitine and seliciclib are tautomers derived from the natural product olomoucine. Seliciclib has stronger CDK inhibitory activity than Roscovitine, and it blocks RNA polymerase II phosphorylation by inhibiting CDK7 and CDK9 activity^174,175. Currently, seliciclib has entered phase I and II clinical trials as a drug candidate.

Aurora kinase

The AURK family is an important class of serine/threonine kinases responsible for the regulation of cell mitosis. Its 3 members are known as Aurora-A (AURKA), Aurora-B (AURKB), and Aurora-C (AURKC) in mammalian cells. AURKA is responsible for regulating mitotic spindle assembly and centrosome segregation, as well as facilitating the transition of cells from G2 to M phase. AURKB is the catalytic component of the chromosome pericentromere complex, which regulates chromatin protein modifications, and promotes chromosome segregation and cytoplasmic division. AURKC is expressed in testis cells and is thought to be important for chromosome segregation during meiosis. AURKA and AURKB play key roles in mitosis.

These kinases are associated with tumorigenesis and are often overexpressed in tumor cells. For example, AURKA is usually highly expressed and actively repairs damaged DNA, thus prompting a return to mitosis. AURKA overexpression constitutively activates CDK1 and abolishes the G2/M DNA damage checkpoint in cancer cells¹⁷⁶. In addition, AURKA promotes the proliferation and migration of cancer cells during mitotic interphase. AURKB is also a mitotic driver, is overexpressed in a variety of tumor tissues, and promotes tumor invasion. Although AURKC executes unique roles in meiosis, those roles are not discussed here. Given that AURK overexpression is associated with tumorigenesis, these kinases have been potential targets for cancer therapy, and several AURK inhibitors have been developed. In recent years, an increasing number of natural products have shown similar anti-tumor effects to AURK inhibitors. Natural products targeting AURKs are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4

Natural products for targeting AURKs to inhibit mitosis. Aurora kinase (AURKs) are involved in mitotic processes, and down-regulation of AURKs in cancer cells inhibits mitosis. Curcumin inhibits AURKA and changes the bipolar spindle to unipolar, thus inhibiting the continuation of mitosis. Gossypin, as well as 2 active components of eriocaulon sieboldianum (HPDL and QGGP), binds the ATP pocket of AURKA, thereby depleting AURKA.

Curcumin

Curcumin, a hydrophobic polyphenol extracted from rhizome herbs such as Zingiberaceae Martinov and AraceaeJuss, has a broad spectrum of biological and pharmacological activities, including anti-inflammatory and anti-tumor effects. Curcumin has been found to decrease the AURKA protein and kinase activity in human breast chemoresistant nonmetastatic MCF-7 and highly metastatic cancer MDA-MB-231 cells. The effects of curcumin are similar to those of AURKA siRNA treatment, including monopolar spindle formation, S and G2/M arrest, and diminished cell division¹⁷⁷. In human bladder cancer cells, curcumin down-regulates the promoter activity of AURKA, thus inhibiting AURKA at the transcriptional level. In addition, curcumin inhibits the phosphorylation of AURKA and its downstream target histone H3 along with the formation of a monopolar spindle. Eventually, G2/M phase arrest occurs, thus decreasing cell division¹⁷⁸. In summary, the mitotic inhibitory effects of curcumin on cancer cells may be closely associated with the down-regulation of AURKA. In addition to targeting AURKA, curcumin inhibits mitosis by promoting DNA damage, including DNA double-strand breaks¹⁷⁹, and activation of DDR and pathways¹⁸⁰. Thus, curcumin is an anti-tumor natural product worthy of in-depth study.

Tanshinone I

Danshen (Salvia miltiorrhiza Bunge) has been widely used in China for centuries to treat coronary heart diseases. Tanshinones such as cryptotanshinone (CT), tanshinone IIA (T2A), and tanshinone I (T1), are diterpene compounds in Danshen that have been shown to possess anti-tumor activity. Among the studied tanshinones, T1 has strong anti-tumor effects partially attributed to AURKA. In lung cancer, T1 significantly inhibits cell proliferation and tumor growth, but this effect is dramatically eliminated by AURKA knockdown¹⁸¹. T1 has shown similar effects in prostate cancer¹⁸² and breast cancer¹⁸³. In particular, in breast cancer cells (MDA-MB231), only T1, but not other tanshinones, shows a potent inhibitory effect on cell growth; therefore, T1 causes cell cycle arrest in both estrogen-dependent and estrogen-independent cells. T1 regulates the expression of cyclin D, CDK4 and cyclin B, and inhibits the expression of AURKA. Tanshinones appear to have few adverse effects on normal mammary epithelial cells¹⁸³. In summary, AURKA is an important target for tanshinones.

Gossypin

Gossypin, a flavone originally isolated from Hibiscus vitifolius, has many pharmacological activities, including anti-angiogenesis, anti-inflammation, and anti-tumor functions¹⁸⁴. Computational docking results have indicated that gossypin directly binds the ATP pocket of AURKA, thus exerting inhibitory effects on AURKA. In human gastric cancer cells, Gossypin inhibits AURKA and induces a G2/M phase block, thereby leading to apoptosis¹⁸⁵. A similar binding ATP pocket of AURKA has been found in 2 active components of Eriocaulon sieboldianum (HPDL and QGGP) leading to G2/M phase arrest in HepG2 cells¹⁸⁶.

Others

P3, a high molecular weight compound isolated from a marine sponge called Crambetailliezi, selectively inhibits AURKA and AURKB, and decreases the mitotic index and apoptotic phenotype of U-2 OS sarcoma cells¹⁸⁷.

Some TCM formulas or single herbs have also shown inhibitory effects on AURKA, although the active compounds remains unclear. San Huang Decoction (SHD), a Chinese herbal formula made from 5 Chinese herbs, has been widely used to treat metabolic syndrome for centuries and has been used for clinical treatment of patients with breast cancer¹⁸⁸. SHD has been found to inhibit the proliferaiton of MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer cells, an effect associated with the down-regulation of AURKA¹⁸⁹. In addition, by targeting AURKA, SHD may inhibit tumor angiogenesis in breast cancer¹⁹⁰. Hedyotis diffusa Willd. (H) and Scutellaria barbata D.Don (S) are 2 ancient anti-cancer Chinese herbs that are used in combined “HS” treatment in prostate cancer¹⁹⁰. HS inhibits the G2 to M phase transformation of prostate cancer cells by decreasing the protein and mRNA levels of AURKA, CDK1, PLK1, and Cyclin B1¹⁹⁰. The active components and molecular mechanisms of these herbs require more extensive research.

AURKs are crucial in the spindle assembly checkpoint, alignment of metaphase chromosomes, and chromosomal biorientation. AURKA and AURKB play key roles in mitosis, and some natual products targeting AURKA and AURKB exert anti-tumor effects in vitro. Curcumin, tanshinone I, and Gossypin act on AURKA, and P3 acts on AURKA and AURKB in vitro. Some TCM formulas, such as SHD, show similar effects on AURKA. However, the mechanism and efficacy in vivo require further in-depth study.

Althrough natural products with AURKA inhibitory effects are gradually being discovered, no AURKA inhibitors have been marketed to date or entered clinical trials, owing to the multi-target effects, weak selectivity, and strong toxic adverse effects of natural products. Currently, highly selective AURKA inhibitors have become a focus of new drug development and clinical research.

Other mitosis-related kinases

Polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1), a new target for mitosis discovered in recent years, belongs to a group of serine/threonine kinases widely found in eukaryotic cells, and is mainly regulated by G1-phase transcriptional repressors and G2-phase transcriptional activators¹⁹¹. Recent studies have revealed that the overexpression of PLK1 not only promotes multiple defects in mitosis but also leads to the accumulation of chromosomal instability, thus favoring aneuploidy and tumor formation¹⁹². PLK1 is a promising target for inhibiting mitosis in cancer cells. Scutellaria baicalensis Georgi has strong anti-PLK1 activity, and its main active components, baicalin and baicalin, covalently bind PLK1 via Cys133, thus providing a basis for further development of drugs targeting PLK1¹⁹³. In vitro experiments with Glucocappasalin have demonstrated its ability to inhibit PLK1 expression in HeLa cells and to induce cell cycle G2/M phase arrest¹⁹⁴. In addition, Jerantinine B¹⁹⁵, caffeic acid phenethyl ester,¹⁹⁶ and catechins¹⁹⁷ have anti-PLK1 effects in various types of cancer cells.

Monopolar spindle1 (Mps1) is a serine/threonine kinase that ensures proper orientation of sister chromatids on the mitotic spindle, mainly through the spindle assembly checkpoint^198,199. Treatment of mitotic colorectal cancer cell lines with Mps1 inhibitors results in cell death²⁰⁰. T-LAK cell-originated protein kinase (TOPK) is a serine/threonine kinase in the mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MAPKK) family that plays a role in cell cycle and mitotic progression²⁰¹. Although little research has been performed on the natural products that regulate Mps1 and TOPK, these kinases are of great interest as promising targets for mitosis, and the discovery of regulatory natural products is believed to provide a reliable basis for clinical trials.

Discussion

Mitosis is an essential and conserved process in the life cycle of mammalian cells, and is uncontrolled in cancer cells. Thus, interfering with mitosis was an early concept for cancer therapy that has been demonstrated to be successful in clinical settings. In recent years, natural products have attracted increasing attention in cancer therapy, owing to their structural and target diversity. This review summarized the clinical uses of experimental anti-tumor natural products targeting multiple elements during mitosis, including microtubules, the DDR, CDKs, and AURKs. Although many anti-tumor natural products have achieved good clinical effects—including paclitaxel, CPTs, and vincristine—drug resistance, poor targeting, and poor druggability are important factors limiting the clinical application or drug development.

Drug resistance is a major problem in clinical settings. A typical representative of resistance is paclitaxel, a drug that issensitive to βIII-microtubulin¹⁶. Studies have confirmed that the high expression of βIII in tumor cells is an important reason for paclitaxel resistance, in cancers including lung cancer, ovarian cancer, breast cancer, and gastric cancer. Overexpression of tubulin-βIII decreases the ability of paclitaxel to suppress microtubule dynamics, thus resulting in resistance²⁰². Another study on the cytotoxicity of HT29-D4 paclitaxel human colorectal cancer cells has demonstrated that undifferentiated and differentiated cancer cells differ in their sensitivity to paclitaxel, owing to altered βIII-microtubule protein expression. Furthermore, the selective overexpression of tubulin αII and tubulin βI and βIV accounts for the resistance of vincristine²⁰³, in accordance with the conclusion that differential overexpression of the tubulin isotype is a cause of drug resistance. Resistance to CPTs, DNA TopoI inhibitors, remains not completely clear. The structural alteration of TopoI and cellular response alterations in CPT-DNA-ternary complex formation are the 2 factors in drug resistence²⁰⁴. A growing body of research is focusing on the therapeutic targets to ameliorate drug resistance. For example, in the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer, paclitaxel resistance can be reversed by decreasing LIN9 expression, thus suggesting that paclitaxel resistance in triple-negative breast cancer can be reversed by combining bromo- and extra-terminal domain inhibitors with paclitaxel. In addition, compared with β-tubulin-targeted MTA, α-targeted natural products (such as Pironetin) have better selectivity and therefore are in urgent need of development.

Another crucial factor limiting clinical application or use in other therapeutic areas is toxicity toward normal cells. A major problem in using MTA in cancer treatment is its high systemic toxicity, including bone marrow suppression, gastrointestinal bleeding, hair loss, and tingling of the hands and feet. For example, the major toxicities caused by paclitaxel are neutropenia and peripheral neuropathies. Colchicine has been used to treat gout for many years, but its high toxicity at anti-tumor doses, possibly because of its quasi-irreversible binding tubulin, has limited its anticancer therapy development. Because of colchicine’s severe toxicity, many colchicine analogues have been developed to decrease toxicity and maintain efficacy. Studies have shown that modifying colchicine substituents alters binding affinity, and thus the inhibition of tubulin polymerization and cytotoxicity. A simple analog “AC,” retaining only the A and C-ring of colchicine, binds tubulin instantaneously and reversibly, owing to the low activation energy of colchicine–tubulin binding⁵⁰. Different functional groups, such as amides and thioamides, have been introduced in colchicine. An A-ring derivative, 4-halo-(-)-colchicine shows strong activity against human cancer cells, including lung adenocarcinoma A549, colon adenocarcinoma HT29, and HCT116, with the high selectivity and the low toxicity²⁰⁵.

The aqueous insolubility or poor pharmacokinetic properties of some natural products have limited their clinical efficacy. Structural modification is one method to increase solubility. For example, the low aqueous solubility and bioavailability of CPT has been largely addressed with chemically modified topotecan and irinocand. In addition to structural modification of natural products, novel delivery systems, such as nanoparticles, provide another way to address current challenges. Various nanoparticles have been developed for delivery of anti-tumor active compounds²⁰⁶. Researchers have developed PCL-TPGS (caprolactone-Tocopherol Polyethylene Glycol Succ)-loaded paclitaxel, and the area under the curve of paclitaxel increased about 2.7-fold, the t_1/2 increased, and the clearance rate decreased compared to free paclitaxel²⁰⁷. Similarly, compared with free curcumin, phospholipid-, chitosan- or lipid nanocapsule-loaded curcumin show greater areas under the curve and Cmax, and are more efficiently delivered into tumor cells^208–210. Moreover, beyond improving the solubility and pharmacokinetic properties, some nanoparticles further enhance the stability and selectivity of drugs, thereby increasing the efficacy or decreasing the toxicity.

In the face of problems associated with the development of clinical drugs of natural product origin, researchers have modified dosage forms and structures to increase efficacy and decrease toxicity. Regarding clinical drugs targeting microtubules, the classical example is paclitaxel, although its insolubility and drug resistance are a major challenge. Several new dosage forms and new structures have been developed to solve the problem during a 50-year-long research process. The emergence of upgraded dosage forms, such as albumin paclitaxel, paclitaxel liposomes, paclitaxel micelles, paclitaxel nanoformulations, and paclitaxel oral formulations, has expanded the indications for paclitaxel drugs. Beyond dosage form modification, many structural modifications to paclitaxel have been developed, such as cabazitaxel, docetaxel, milataxel, ortataxel, salutaxel, simotaxel, and paclitaxel ceribate. The development path of paclitaxel provides a good example for other natural products to solve the clinical development problems of natural products through dosage form modification and structural modification. Beyond the problems of high toxicity, low bioavailability, poor solubility, and high drug resistance of some natural products, the clinical drug development of natural products also faces the problem of unclear multiple targets. Although the multi-target characteristics of natural products can decrease drug resistance, they complicate mechanistic studies. Currently, many new techniques for target prediction are available, such as reverse molecular docking and 3D pharmacophore modeling techniques^211,212. Wei et al.²¹³ have used the parameters of protein-ligand conformation interaction patterns as important indicators for target prediction and screening; this new strategy for target prediction effectively improved the accuracy of small molecule target identification.

In summary, many anti-tumor natural products have been introduced to date, and their anti-tumor activity and molecular targets are receiving increasing attention. Here, we focused on the inhibition of mitosis in tumor cells. Paclitaxel, CPT, and vincristine are typical examples of natural anti-tumor drugs, which have favorable anti-mitosis effects. As the mechanisms of these drugs have been explored, new discoveries have provided clinical advantages. The potential of natural products in anti-tumor drug development is enormous. Simultaneously, natural products have disadvantages such as toxicity and low efficacy, which must be improved in the future. Currently, drug development is increasingly becoming inclined toward structural modification and dosage modification of natural products with significant antitumor effects, and many new drug delivery systems have been developed to expand the drug delivery capacity and improve drug targeting. This review is intended to provide ideas for researchers to discover or develop more potent and selective anti-cancer agents.

Grant support

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No: 2021YFE0203100), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos: 81873089, 81603253 and 81973570), Innovation Team and Talents Cultivation Program of National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine (Grant No: ZYYCXTD-C-202009), and Innovation Team and Talents Cultivation Program of National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine (Grant No: ZYYCXTD-D-202002).

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflicts of interest are disclosed.

Author contributions

Conceived and designed the analysis: Haiyang Yu, Weiling Pu.

Collected the data: Manru Huang, Caiyan Liu.

Contributed data or analysis tools: Manru Huang, Yingying Shao, Shiyue Zhou.

Performed the analysis: Caiyan Liu, Gaoyong Hu, Shuangshuang Yin.

Wrote the paper: Manru Huang, Caiyan Liu.

Acknowledgements

We thank Professor Wenwei Hu (Cancer Institute of New Jersey, USA) for linguistic assistance during the preparation of this manuscript.

Footnotes

↵*These authors contributed equally to this work.

Received January 4, 2022.
Accepted March 9, 2022.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

References

1.↵
2. Sung H,
3. Ferlay J,
4. Siegel RL,
5. Laversanne M,
6. Soerjomataram I,
7. Jemal A, et al.
Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: a Cancer Journal For Clinicians. 2021; 71: 209–49.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
2.↵
2. Bray F,
3. Ferlay J,
4. Soerjomataram I,
5. Siegel RL,
6. Torre LA,
7. Jemal A.
Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018; 68: 394–424.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
3.↵
2. Trosko JE.
On the potential origin and characteristics of cancer stem cells. Carcinogenesis. 2021; 42: 905–12.
OpenUrl
4.↵
2. McIntosh JR.
Mitosis. Cold Spring Harbor Perspect Biol. 2016; 8(9): a023218.
5.↵
2. Steinmetz MO,
3. Prota AE.
Microtubule-targeting agents: strategies to hijack the Cytoskeleton. Trends Cell Biol. 2018; 28: 776–92.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
6.↵
2. Gudimchuk NB,
3. McIntosh JR.
Regulation of microtubule dynamics, mechanics and function through the growing tip. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2021; 22: 777–95.
OpenUrl
7.↵
2. Jordan MA,
3. Wilson L.
Microtubules as a target for anticancer drugs. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004; 4: 253–65.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
8.↵
2. Lezaja A,
3. Altmeyer M.
Dealing with DNA lesions: when one cell cycle is not sufficient. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2021; 70: 27–36.
OpenUrl
9.↵
2. Orthwein A,
3. Fradet-Turcotte A,
4. Noordermeer SM,
5. Canny MD,
6. Brun CM,
7. Strecker J, et al.
Mitosis inhibits DNA double-strand break repair to guard against telomere fusions. Science. 2014; 344: 189–93.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
10.↵
2. Williams GH,
3. Stoeber K.
The cell cycle and cancer. J Pathol. 2012; 226: 352–64.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
11.↵
2. Sedlacek HH.
Mechanisms of action of flavopiridol. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol. 2001; 38: 139–70.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
12.↵
2. Du R,
3. Huang C,
4. Liu K,
5. Li X,
6. Dong Z.
Targeting AURKA in Cancer: molecular mechanisms and opportunities for cancer therapy. Mol Cancer. 2021; 20: 15.
OpenUrl CrossRef
13.↵
2. Goodson HV,
3. Jonasson EM.
Microtubules and microtubule-associated proteins. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2018; 10: a022608.
14.↵
2. Kops G,
3. Gassmann R.
Crowning the kinetochore: the fibrous corona in chromosome segregation. Trends Cell Biol. 2020; 30: 653–67.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
15.↵
2. Magidson V,
3. O’Connell CB,
4. Loncarek J,
5. Paul R,
6. Mogilner A,
7. Khodjakov A.
The spatial arrangement of chromosomes during prometaphase facilitates spindle assembly. Cell. 2011; 146: 555–67.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
16.↵
2. Kavallaris M.
Microtubules and resistance to tubulin-binding agents. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010; 10: 194–204.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
17.↵
2. Khwaja S,
3. Kumar K,
4. Das R,
5. Negi AS.
Microtubule associated proteins as targets for anticancer drug development. Bioorg Chem. 2021; 116: 105320.
18.↵
2. Horwitz SB.
Mechanism of action of taxol. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 1992; 13: 134–36.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
19.↵
2. Scribano CM,
3. Wan J,
4. Esbona K,
5. Tucker JB,
6. Lasek A,
7. Zhou AS, et al.
Chromosomal instability sensitizes patient breast tumors to multipolar divisions induced by paclitaxel. Sci Transl Med. 2021; 13: eabd4811.
20.↵
2. Weaver BA.
How Taxol/paclitaxel kills cancer cells. Mol Biol Cell. 2014; 25: 2677–81.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
21.↵
2. Budd GT,
3. Barlow WE,
4. Moore HC,
5. Hobday TJ,
6. Stewart JA,
7. Isaacs C, et al.
SWOG S0221: a phase III trial comparing chemotherapy schedules in high-risk early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33: 58–64.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
22.↵
2. Fountzilas G,
3. Dafni U,
4. Dimopoulos MA,
5. Koutras A,
6. Skarlos D,
7. Papakostas P, et al.
A randomized phase III study comparing three anthracycline-free taxane-based regimens, as first line chemotherapy, in metastatic breast cancer: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009; 115: 87–99.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
23.↵
2. Ma Y,
3. Yu S,
4. Ni S,
5. Zhang B,
6. Kung ACF,
7. Gao J, et al.
Targeting strategies for enhancing paclitaxel specificity in chemotherapy. Front Cell Devel Biol. 2021; 9: 626910.
24.↵
2. Mu L,
3. Feng SS.
A novel controlled release formulation for the anticancer drug paclitaxel (Taxol): PLGA nanoparticles containing vitamin E TPGS. J Control Release. 2003; 86: 33–48.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
25.
2. Fenyvesi F,
3. Kiss T,
4. Fenyvesi E,
5. Szente L,
6. Veszelka S,
7. Deli MA, et al.
Randomly methylated beta-cyclodextrin derivatives enhance taxol permeability through human intestinal epithelial Caco-2 cell monolayer. J Pharm Sci. 2011; 100: 4734–44.
OpenUrl PubMed
26.↵
2. Runowicz CD,
3. Wiernik PH,
4. Einzig AI,
5. Goldberg GL,
6. Horwitz SB.
Taxol in ovarian cancer. Cancer. 1993; 71: 1591–96.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
27.↵
2. Moreno-Aspitia A,
3. Perez EA.
North Central Cancer Treatment Group N0531: Phase II Trial of weekly albumin-bound paclitaxel (ABI-007; Abraxane) in combination with gemcitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2005; 6: 361–4.
OpenUrl PubMed
28.↵
Albumin-bound paclitaxel (Abraxane) for advanced breast cancer. Med Lett Drugs Ther. 2005; 47: 39–40.
OpenUrl PubMed
29.↵
2. Bernabeu E,
3. Cagel M,
4. Lagomarsino E,
5. Moretton M,
6. Chiappetta DA.
Paclitaxel: What has been done and the challenges remain ahead. Int J Pharm. 2017; 526: 474–95.
OpenUrl
30.↵
2. Zhang J,
3. Pan Y,
4. Shi Q,
5. Zhang G,
6. Jiang L,
7. Dong X, et al.
Paclitaxel liposome for injection (Lipusu) plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin in the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic lung squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel controlled clinical study. Cancer Commun (Lond). 2022; 42: 3–16.
OpenUrl
31.↵
2. Ye L,
3. He J,
4. Hu Z,
5. Dong Q,
6. Wang H,
7. Fu F, et al.
Antitumor effect and toxicity of Lipusu in rat ovarian cancer xenografts. Food Chem Toxicol. 2013; 52: 200–6.
OpenUrl
32.↵
2. Yang JI,
3. Jin B,
4. Kim SY,
5. Li Q,
6. Nam A,
7. Ryu MO, et al.
Antitumour effects of Liporaxel (oral paclitaxel) for canine melanoma in a mouse xenograft model. Vet Comp Oncol. 2020; 18: 152–60.
OpenUrl
33.↵
2. Shanmugam S,
3. Im HT,
4. Sohn YT,
5. Kim YI,
6. Park JH,
7. Park ES, et al.
Enhanced oral bioavailability of paclitaxel by solid dispersion granulation. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2015; 41: 1864–76.
OpenUrl
34.↵
2. Lee KW,
3. Lee KH,
4. Zang DY,
5. Park YI,
6. Shin DB,
7. Kim JW, et al.
Phase I/II study of weekly oraxol for the second-line treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer. Oncologist. 2015; 20: 896–7.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
35.↵
2. Jedličková H,
3. Vokurka S,
4. Vojtíšek R,
5. Malečková A.
Alopecia and hair damage induced by oncological therapy. Klin Onkol. 2019; 32: 353–9.
OpenUrl
36.↵
2. Kong TH,
3. Han SM,
4. Seo YJ.
Chondritis of the ear after docetaxel-carboplatin chemotherapy. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2019; 25: 975–9.
OpenUrl
37.↵
2. Groth-Pedersen L,
3. Ostenfeld MS,
4. Høyer-Hansen M,
5. Nylandsted J,
6. Jäättelä M.
Vincristine induces dramatic lysosomal changes and sensitizes cancer cells to lysosome-destabilizing siramesine. Cancer Res. 2007; 67: 2217–25.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
38.↵
2. Stanton RA,
3. Gernert KM,
4. Nettles JH,
5. Aneja R.
Drugs that target dynamic microtubules: a new molecular perspective. Med Res Rev. 2011; 31: 443–81.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
39.↵
2. Jordan MA,
3. Thrower D,
4. Wilson L.
Effects of vinblastine, podophyllotoxin and nocodazole on mitotic spindles. implications for the role of microtubule dynamics in mitosis. J Cell Sci. 1992; 102 (Pt 3): 401–16.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
40.↵
2. Ahmadi SE,
3. Rahimi S,
4. Zarandi B,
5. Chegeni R,
6. Safa M.
MYC: a multipurpose oncogene with prognostic and therapeutic implications in blood malignancies. J Hematol Oncol. 2021; 14: 121.
OpenUrl
41.↵
2. Rohrberg J,
3. Van de Mark D,
4. Amouzgar M,
5. Lee JV,
6. Taileb M,
7. Corella A, et al.
MYC dysregulates mitosis, revealing cancer vulnerabilities. Cell Rep. 2020; 30: 3368–82.e3367.
OpenUrl
42.↵
2. Koch HB,
3. Zhang R,
4. Verdoodt B,
5. Bailey A,
6. Zhang CD,
7. Yates JR, et al.
Large-scale identification of c-MYC-associated proteins using a combined TAP/MudPIT approach. Cell Cycle. 2007; 6: 205–17.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
43.↵
2. Sjostrom SK,
3. Finn G,
4. Hahn WC,
5. Rowitch DH,
6. Kenney AM.
The Cdk1 complex plays a prime role in regulating N-myc phosphorylation and turnover in neural precursors. Dev Cell. 2005; 9: 327–38.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
44.↵
2. Becker S,
3. Kiecke C,
4. Schafer E,
5. Sinzig U,
6. Deuper L,
7. Trigo-Mourino P, et al.
Destruction of a microtubule-bound MYC reservoir during mitosis contributes to vincristine’s anticancer activity. Mol Cancer Res. 2020; 18: 859–72.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
45.↵
2. Takigawa N,
3. Tanimoto M.
[Vinca alkaloid and MDR1]. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2008; 35: 1086–89.
OpenUrl PubMed
46.↵
2. Mondal A,
3. Gandhi A,
4. Fimognari C,
5. Atanasov AG,
6. Bishayee A.
Alkaloids for cancer prevention and therapy: current progress and future perspectives. Eur J Pharmacol. 2019; 858: 172472.
47.↵
2. Frampton JE,
3. Moen MD.
Vinflunine. Drugs. 2010; 70: 1283–93.
OpenUrl PubMed
48.
2. Yun-San Yip A,
3. Yuen-Yuen Ong E,
4. Chow LW-C.
Vinflunine: clinical perspectives of an emerging anticancer agent. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2008; 17: 583–91.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
49.↵
2. Bernardini A,
3. Duenas M,
4. Martin-Soberon MC,
5. Rubio C,
6. Suarez-Cabrera C,
7. Ruiz-Palomares R, et al.
Genomic landscape of vinflunine response in metastatic urothelial cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14: 378.
OpenUrl
50.↵
2. Bhattacharyya B,
3. Panda D,
4. Gupta S,
5. Banerjee M.
Anti-mitotic activity of colchicine and the structural basis for its interaction with tubulin. Med Res Rev. 2008; 28: 155–83.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
51.↵
2. Eleftheriou G,
3. Bacis G,
4. Fiocchi R,
5. Sebastiano R.
Colchicine-induced toxicity in a heart transplant patient with chronic renal failure. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2008; 46: 827–30.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
52.↵
2. Finkelstein Y,
3. Aks SE,
4. Hutson JR,
5. Juurlink DN,
6. Nguyen P,
7. Dubnov-Raz G, et al.
Colchicine poisoning: the dark side of an ancient drug. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2010; 48: 407–14.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
53.↵
2. Krzywik J,
3. Aminpour M,
4. Maj E,
5. Mozga W,
6. Wietrzyk J,
7. Tuszyński JA, et al.
New series of double-modified colchicine derivatives: synthesis, cytotoxic effect and molecular docking. Molecules. 2020; 25: 3540.
OpenUrl
54.↵
2. Robinson PC,
3. Terkeltaub R,
4. Pillinger MH,
5. Shah B,
6. Karalis V,
7. Karatza E, et al.
Consensus statement regarding the efficacy and safety of long-term low-dose colchicine in gout and cardiovascular disease. Am J Med. 2022; 135: 32–8.
OpenUrl
55.↵
2. Dubey KK,
3. Kumar P,
4. Labrou NE,
5. Shukla P.
Biotherapeutic potential and mechanisms of action of colchicine. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2017; 37: 1038–47.
OpenUrl
56.↵
2. Antúnez-Mojica M,
3. Rodríguez-Salarichs J,
4. Redondo-Horcajo M,
5. León A,
6. Barasoain I,
7. Canales Á, et al.
Structural and biochemical characterization of the interaction of tubulin with potent natural analogues of podophyllotoxin. J Nat Prod. 2016; 79: 2113–21.
OpenUrl
57.↵
2. Giri A,
3. Lakshmi Narasu M.
Production of podophyllotoxin from Podophyllum hexandrum: a potential natural product for clinically useful anticancer drugs. Cytotechnology. 2000; 34: 17–26.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
58.↵
2. Sackett DL.
Podophyllotoxin, steganacin and combretastatin: natural products that bind at the colchicine site of tubulin. Pharmacol Therapeutics. 1993; 59: 163–228.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
59.↵
2. Zhao Y,
3. Li D,
4. Wei M,
5. Du R,
6. Yan Z.
The ester derivatives obtained by C-ring modification of podophyllotoxin induce apoptosis and inhibited proliferation in PC-3M cells via down-regulation of PI3K/Akt signaling pathway. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2021; 46: 128174.
60.↵
2. Zhao W,
3. Cong Y,
4. Li HM,
5. Li S,
6. Shen Y,
7. Qi Q, et al.
Challenges and potential for improving the druggability of podophyllotoxin-derived drugs in cancer chemotherapy. Nat Prod Rep. 2021; 38: 470–88.
OpenUrl
61.↵
2. Gamage CDB,
3. Park SY,
4. Yang Y,
5. Zhou R,
6. Taş İ,
7. Bae WK, et al.
Deoxypodophyllotoxin exerts anti-cancer effects on colorectal cancer cells through induction of apoptosis and suppression of tumorigenesis. Int J Mol Sci. 2019; 20: 2612.
OpenUrl
62.↵
2. Zang X,
3. Wang G,
4. Cai Q,
5. Zheng X,
6. Zhang J,
7. Chen Q, et al.
A Promising microtubule inhibitor deoxypodophyllotoxin exhibits better efficacy to multidrug-resistant breast cancer than paclitaxel via avoiding efflux transport. Drug Metab Dispos. 2018; 46: 542–51.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
63.↵
2. Futaki K,
3. Takahashi M,
4. Tanabe K,
5. Fujieda A,
6. Kigoshi H,
7. Kita M.
Synthesis and biological activities of aplyronine a analogues toward the development of antitumor protein-protein interaction inducers between actin and tubulin: conjugation of the C1-C9 macrolactone part and the C24-C34 side chain. ACS Omega. 2019; 4: 8598–613.
OpenUrl
64.
2. Yamada K,
3. Ojika M,
4. Kigoshi H,
5. Suenaga K.
Aplyronine A, a potent antitumour macrolide of marine origin, and the congeners aplyronines B-H: chemistry and biology. Nat Prod Rep. 2009; 26: 27–43.
OpenUrl PubMed
65.↵
2. Kita M,
3. Kigoshi H.
Marine natural products that interfere with multiple cytoskeletal protein interactions. Nat Prod Rep. 2015; 32: 534–42.
OpenUrl
66.↵
2. Chakrabarti KR,
3. Hessler L,
4. Bhandary L,
5. Martin SS.
Molecular Pathways: New signaling considerations when targeting cytoskeletal balance to reduce tumor growth. Clin Cancer Res. 2015; 21: 5209–14.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
67.↵
2. Kita M,
3. Hirayama Y,
4. Yoneda K,
5. Yamagishi K,
6. Chinen T,
7. Usui T, et al.
Inhibition of microtubule assembly by a complex of actin and antitumor macrolide aplyronine A. J Am Chem Soc. 2013; 135: 18089–95.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
68.↵
2. Hirata K,
3. Muraoka S,
4. Suenaga K,
5. Kuroda T,
6. Kato K,
7. Tanaka H, et al.
Structure basis for antitumor effect of aplyronine a. J Mol Biol. 2006; 356: 945–54.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
69.↵
2. Torijano-Gutierrez S,
3. Vilanova C,
4. Diaz-Oltra S,
5. Murga J,
6. Falomir E,
7. Carda M, et al.
The mechanism of the interactions of pironetin analog/combretastatin A-4 hybrids with tubulin. Arch Pharm (Weinheim). 2015; 348: 541–7.
OpenUrl
70.↵
2. Usui T,
3. Watanabe H,
4. Nakayama H,
5. Tada Y,
6. Kanoh N,
7. Kondoh M, et al.
The anticancer natural product pironetin selectively targets Lys352 of alpha-tubulin. Chem Biol. 2004; 11: 799–806.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
71.↵
2. Yang J,
3. Wang Y,
4. Wang T,
5. Jiang J,
6. Botting CH,
7. Liu H, et al.
Pironetin reacts covalently with cysteine-316 of α-tubulin to destabilize microtubule. Nat Commun. 2016; 7: 12103.
72.↵
2. Castro-Gamero AM,
3. Pezuk JA,
4. Brassesco MS,
5. Tone LG.
G2/M inhibitors as pharmacotherapeutic opportunities for glioblastoma: the old, the new, and the future. Cancer Biol Med. 2018; 15: 354–74.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
73.↵
2. Tanabe K.
Microtubule depolymerization by kinase inhibitors: unexpected findings of dual inhibitors. Int J Mol Sci. 2017; 18: 2508.
OpenUrl
74.↵
2. Stanković T,
3. Dinić J,
4. Podolski-Renić A,
5. Musso L,
6. Burić SS,
7. Dallavalle S, et al.
Dual inhibitors as a new challenge for cancer multidrug resistance treatment. Curr Med Chem. 2019; 26: 6074–106.
OpenUrl
75.↵
2. Yang H-W,
3. Hua M-Y,
4. Liu H-L,
5. Tsai R-Y,
6. Chuang C-K,
7. Chu P-C, et al.
Cooperative dual-activity targeted nanomedicine for specific and effective prostate cancer therapy. ACS Nano. 2012; 6: 1795–805.
OpenUrl PubMed
76.
2. Madamsetty VS,
3. Pal K,
4. Dutta SK,
5. Wang E,
6. Mukhopadhyay D.
Targeted dual intervention-oriented drug-encapsulated (DIODE) nanoformulations for improved treatment of pancreatic cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2020; 12: 1189.
OpenUrl
77.
2. Houdaihed L,
3. Evans JC,
4. Allen C.
In vivo evaluation of dual-targeted nanoparticles encapsulating paclitaxel and everolimus. Cancers (Basel). 2019; 11: 752.
OpenUrl
78.↵
2. Grojean M,
3. Schwarz MA,
4. Schwarz JR,
5. Hassan S,
6. von Holzen U,
7. Zhang C, et al.
Targeted dual inhibition of c-Met/VEGFR2 signalling by foretinib improves antitumour effects of nanoparticle paclitaxel in gastric cancer models. J Cell Mol Med. 2021; 25: 4950–61.
OpenUrl
79.↵
2. O’Connor MJ.
Targeting the DNA damage response in cancer. Mol Cell. 2015; 60: 547–60.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
80.↵
2. Curtin NJ.
DNA repair dysregulation from cancer driver to therapeutic target. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012; 12: 801–17.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
81.↵
2. Gillman R,
3. Lopes Floro K,
4. Wankell M,
5. Hebbard L.
The role of DNA damage and repair in liver cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer. 2021; 1875: 188493.
82.↵
2. Sun S,
3. Osterman MD,
4. Li M.
Tissue specificity of DNA damage response and tumorigenesis. Cancer Biol Med. 2019; 16: 396–414.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
83.↵
2. Lord CJ,
3. Ashworth A.
The DNA damage response and cancer therapy. Nature. 2012; 481: 287–94.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
84.↵
2. Liu LF,
3. Desai SD,
4. Li TK,
5. Mao Y,
6. Sun M,
7. Sim SP.
Mechanism of action of camptothecin. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000; 922: 1–10.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
85.↵
2. Leteurtre F,
3. Fesen M,
4. Kohlhagen G,
5. Kohn KW,
6. Pommier Y.
Specific interaction of camptothecin, a topoisomerase I inhibitor, with guanine residues of DNA detected by photoactivation at 365 nm. Biochemistry. 1993; 32: 8955–62.
OpenUrl
86.↵
2. Li F,
3. Jiang T,
4. Li Q,
5. Ling X.
Camptothecin (CPT) and its derivatives are known to target topoisomerase I (Top1) as their mechanism of action: did we miss something in CPT analogue molecular targets for treating human disease such as cancer? Am J Cancer Res. 2017; 7: 2350–94.
OpenUrl PubMed
87.↵
2. Tsao YP,
3. D’Arpa P,
4. Liu LF.
The involvement of active DNA synthesis in camptothecin-induced G2 arrest: altered regulation of p34cdc2/cyclin B. Cancer Res. 1992; 52: 1823–29.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
88.↵
2. Wang X,
3. Tanaka M,
4. Krstin S,
5. Peixoto HS,
6. Moura CCM,
7. Wink M.
Cytoskeletal interference - a new mode of action for the anticancer drugs camptothecin and topotecan. Eur J Pharmacol. 2016; 789: 265–74.
OpenUrl
89.↵
2. Ray Chaudhuri A,
3. Hashimoto Y,
4. Herrador R,
5. Neelsen KJ,
6. Fachinetti D,
7. Bermejo R, et al.
Topoisomerase I poisoning results in PARP-mediated replication fork reversal. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2012; 19: 417–23.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
90.↵
2. Saitoh S,
3. Ishii K,
4. Kobayashi Y,
5. Takahashi K.
Spindle checkpoint signaling requires the mis6 kinetochore subcomplex, which interacts with mad2 and mitotic spindles. Mol Biol Cell. 2005; 16: 3666–77.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
91.↵
2. Dilshara MG,
3. Jayasooriya R,
4. Karunarathne W,
5. Choi YH,
6. Kim GY.
Camptothecin induces mitotic arrest through Mad2-Cdc20 complex by activating the JNK-mediated Sp1 pathway. Food Chem Toxicol. 2019; 127: 143–55.
OpenUrl
92.↵
2. Liu YQ,
3. Li WQ,
4. Morris-Natschke SL,
5. Qian K,
6. Yang L,
7. Zhu GX, et al.
Perspectives on biologically active camptothecin derivatives. Med Res Rev. 2015; 35: 753–89.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
93.↵
2. Creemers GJ,
3. Lund B,
4. Verweij J.
Topoisomerase I inhibitors: topotecan and irenotecan. Cancer Treat Rev. 1994; 20: 73–96.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
94.↵
2. de Man FM,
3. Goey AKL,
4. van Schaik RHN,
5. Mathijssen RHJ,
6. Bins S.
Individualization of irinotecan treatment: a review of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacogenetics. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2018; 57: 1229–54.
OpenUrl CrossRef
95.↵
2. Saraf S,
3. Jain A,
4. Hurkat P,
5. Jain SK.
Topotecan liposomes: a visit from a molecular to a therapeutic platform. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst. 2016; 33: 401–32.
OpenUrl
96.↵
2. Li Y,
3. Luo W,
4. Zhang H,
5. Wang C,
6. Yu C,
7. Jiang Z, et al.
Antitumor mechanism of hydroxycamptothecin via the metabolic perturbation of ribonucleotide and deoxyribonucleotide in human colorectal carcinoma cells. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland). 2021; 26: 4902.
OpenUrl
97.↵
2. Ulukan H,
3. Swaan PW.
Camptothecins: a review of their chemotherapeutic potential. Drugs. 2002; 62: 2039–57.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
98.↵
2. Clark JW.
Rubitecan. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2006; 15: 71–9.
OpenUrl PubMed
99.↵
2. Selvendiran K,
3. Singh JPV,
4. Sakthisekaran D.
In vivo effect of piperine on serum and tissue glycoprotein levels in benzo(a)pyrene induced lung carcinogenesis in Swiss albino mice. Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2006; 19: 107–11.
OpenUrl PubMed
100.↵
2. Elimam DM,
3. Elgazar AA,
4. Bonardi A,
5. Abdelfadil M,
6. Nocentini A,
7. El-Domany RA, et al.
Natural inspired piperine-based sulfonamides and carboxylic acids as carbonic anhydrase inhibitors: Design, synthesis and biological evaluation. Eur J Med Chem. 2021; 225: 113800.
101.↵
2. Lai LH,
3. Fu QH,
4. Liu Y,
5. Jiang K,
6. Guo QM,
7. Chen QY, et al.
Piperine suppresses tumor growth and metastasis in vitro and in vivo in a 4T1 murine breast cancer model. Acta Pharmacol Sin. 2012; 33: 523–30.
OpenUrl PubMed
102.↵
2. Guo L,
3. Yang Y,
4. Sheng Y,
5. Wang J,
6. Ruan S,
7. Han C.
Mechanism of piperine in affecting apoptosis and proliferation of gastric cancer cells via ROS-mitochondria-associated signalling pathway. J Cell Mol Med. 2021; 25: 9513–22.
OpenUrl
103.↵
2. Doucette CD,
3. Hilchie AL,
4. Liwski R,
5. Hoskin DW.
Piperine, a dietary phytochemical, inhibits angiogenesis. J Nutr Biochem. 2013; 24: 231–39.
OpenUrl PubMed
104.↵
2. Rather RA,
3. Bhagat M.
Cancer Chemoprevention and piperine: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic opportunities. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2018; 6: 10.
OpenUrl
105.↵
2. Vindelov LL.
Flow microfluorometric analysis of nuclear DNA in cells from solid tumors and cell suspensions. A new method for rapid isolation and straining of nuclei. Virchows Arch B Cell Pathol. 1977; 24: 227–42.
OpenUrl PubMed
106.↵
2. Tawani A,
3. Amanullah A,
4. Mishra A,
5. Kumar A.
Evidences for Piperine inhibiting cancer by targeting human G-quadruplex DNA sequences. Sci Rep. 2016; 6: 39239.
107.↵
2. Fofaria NM,
3. Kim S-H,
4. Srivastava SK.
Piperine causes G1 phase cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in melanoma cells through checkpoint kinase-1 activation. PLoS One. 2014; 9: e94298.
108.↵
2. Selvendiran K,
3. Banu SM,
4. Sakthisekaran D.
Oral supplementation of piperine leads to altered phase II enzymes and reduced DNA damage and DNA-protein cross links in Benzo(a)pyrene induced experimental lung carcinogenesis. Mol Cell Biochem. 2005; 268: 141–7.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
109.↵
2. Calcabrini C,
3. Maffei F,
4. Turrini E,
5. Fimognari C.
Sulforaphane potentiates anticancer effects of doxorubicin and cisplatin and mitigates their toxic effects. Front Pharmacol. 2020; 11: 567.
OpenUrl
110.↵
2. Rajendran P,
3. Kidane AI,
4. Yu TW,
5. Dashwood WM,
6. Bisson WH,
7. Lohr CV, et al.
HDAC turnover, CtIP acetylation and dysregulated DNA damage signaling in colon cancer cells treated with sulforaphane and related dietary isothiocyanates. Epigenetics. 2013; 8: 612–23.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
111.↵
2. Myzak MC,
3. Karplus PA,
4. Chung FL,
5. Dashwood RH.
A novel mechanism of chemoprotection by sulforaphane: inhibition of histone deacetylase. Cancer Res. 2004; 64: 5767–74.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
112.↵
2. Eckschlager T,
3. Plch J,
4. Stiborova M,
5. Hrabeta J.
Histone deacetylase inhibitors as anticancer drugs. Int J Mol Sci. 2017; 18: 1414.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
113.↵
2. Dos Santos P,
3. Machado ART,
4. De Grandis RA,
5. Ribeiro DL,
6. Tuttis K,
7. Morselli M, et al.
Transcriptome and DNA methylation changes modulated by sulforaphane induce cell cycle arrest, apoptosis, DNA damage, and suppression of proliferation in human liver cancer cells. Food Chem Toxicol. 2020; 136: 111047.
114.↵
2. Zheng K,
3. Ma J,
4. Wang Y,
5. He Z,
6. Deng K.
Sulforaphane inhibits autophagy and induces exosome-mediated paracrine senescence via regulating mTOR/TFE3. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2020; 64: e1901231.
115.↵
2. Xie H,
3. Chun FKH,
4. Rutz J,
5. Blaheta RA.
Sulforaphane impact on Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) in Bladder Carcinoma. Int J Molr Sci. 2021; 22: 5938.
OpenUrl
116.↵
2. Rauf A,
3. Imran M,
4. Butt MS,
5. Nadeem M,
6. Peters DG,
7. Mubarak MS.
Resveratrol as an anti-cancer agent: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2018; 58: 1428–47.
OpenUrl
117.↵
2. Singh AP,
3. Singh R,
4. Verma SS,
5. Rai V,
6. Kaschula CH,
7. Maiti P, et al.
Health benefits of resveratrol: evidence from clinical studies. Med Res Rev. 2019; 39: 1851–91.
OpenUrl
118.↵
2. Tyagi A,
3. Gu M,
4. Takahata T,
5. Frederick B,
6. Agarwal C,
7. Siriwardana S, et al.
Resveratrol selectively induces DNA Damage, independent of Smad4 expression, in its efficacy against human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2011; 17: 5402–11.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
119.↵
2. Colin DJ,
3. Limagne E,
4. Ragot K,
5. Lizard G,
6. Ghiringhelli F,
7. Solary É, et al.
The role of reactive oxygen species and subsequent DNA-damage response in the emergence of resistance towards resveratrol in colon cancer models. Cell Death Dis. 2014; 5: e1533.
120.↵
2. Yamaguchi M,
3. Suzuki R,
4. Oguchi M.
Advances in the treatment of extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type. Blood. 2018; 131: 2528–40.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
121.↵
2. Sui X,
3. Zhang C,
4. Zhou J,
5. Cao S,
6. Xu C,
7. Tang F, et al.
Resveratrol inhibits Extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma through activation of DNA damage response pathway. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2017; 36: 133.
OpenUrl
122.↵
2. Hande KR.
Etoposide: four decades of development of a topoisomerase II inhibitor. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England: 1990). 1998; 34: 1514–21.
OpenUrl
123.↵
2. Amiri F,
3. Zarnani AH,
4. Zand H,
5. Koohdani F,
6. Jeddi-Tehrani M,
7. Vafa M.
Synergistic anti-proliferative effect of resveratrol and etoposide on human hepatocellular and colon cancer cell lines. Eur J Pharmacol. 2013; 718: 34–40.
OpenUrl PubMed
124.↵
2. Montecucco A,
3. Biamonti G.
Cellular response to etoposide treatment. Cancer Lett. 2007; 252: 9–18.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
125.↵
2. Otto T,
3. Sicinski P.
Cell cycle proteins as promising targets in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017; 17: 93–115.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
126.↵
2. Damodaran AP,
3. Vaufrey L,
4. Gavard O,
5. Prigent C.
Aurora a kinase is a priority pharmaceutical target for the treatment of cancers. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2017; 38: 687–700.
OpenUrl CrossRef
127.↵
2. Dang F,
3. Nie L,
4. Wei W.
Ubiquitin signaling in cell cycle control and tumorigenesis. Cell Death Differ. 2021; 28: 427–38.
OpenUrl CrossRef
128.↵
2. Matthews HK,
3. Bertoli C,
4. de Bruin RAM.
Cell cycle control in cancer. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2021; 23: 74–88.
OpenUrl
129.↵
2. Liu J,
3. Peng Y,
4. Wei W.
Cell cycle on the crossroad of tumorigenesis and cancer therapy. Trends Cell Biol. 2021; 32: 30–44.
OpenUrl
130.↵
2. Hwang HC,
3. Clurman BE.
Cyclin E in normal and neoplastic cell cycles. Oncogene. 2005; 24: 2776–86.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
131.↵
2. Moiseeva TN,
3. Bakkenist CJ.
Regulation of the initiation of DNA replication in human cells. DNA Repair (Amst). 2018; 72: 99–106.
OpenUrl CrossRef
132.↵
2. Bai J,
3. Li Y,
4. Zhang G.
Cell cycle regulation and anticancer drug discovery. Cancer Biol Med. 2017; 14: 348–62.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
133.↵
2. Alvarez-Fernandez M,
3. Malumbres M.
Mechanisms of sensitivity and resistance to CDK4/6 inhibition. Cancer Cell. 2020; 37: 514–29.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
134.↵
2. Weinstein JN,
3. Collisson EA,
4. Mills GB,
5. Shaw KRM,
6. Ozenberger BA,
7. Ellrott K, et al.
The Cancer Genome Atlas Pan-Cancer analysis project. Nat Genet. 2013; 45: 1113–20.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
135.↵
2. Porter DC,
3. Zhang N,
4. Danes C,
5. McGahren MJ,
6. Harwell RM,
7. Faruki S, et al.
Tumor-specific proteolytic processing of cyclin E generates hyperactive lower-molecular-weight forms. Mol Cell Biol. 2001; 21: 6254–69.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
136.↵
2. Suski JM,
3. Braun M,
4. Strmiska V,
5. Sicinski P.
Targeting cell-cycle machinery in cancer. Cancer Cell. 2021; 39: 759–78.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
137.↵
2. Zhu J,
3. Huang R,
4. Yang R,
5. Xiao Y,
6. Yan J,
7. Zheng C, et al.
Licorice extract inhibits growth of non-small cell lung cancer by down-regulating CDK4-Cyclin D1 complex and increasing CD8⁺ T cell infiltration. Cancer Cell Int. 2021; 21: 529.
OpenUrl
138.↵
2. Wang J,
3. Zhang Y-S,
4. Thakur K,
5. Hussain SS,
6. Zhang J-G,
7. Xiao G-R, et al.
Licochalcone A from licorice root, an inhibitor of human hepatoma cell growth via induction of cell apoptosis and cell cycle arrest. Food Chem Toxicol. 2018; 120: 407–17.
OpenUrl
139.↵
2. Chen HY,
3. Cheng WP,
4. Chiang YF,
5. Hong YH,
6. Ali M,
7. Huang TC, et al.
Hinokitiol exhibits antitumor properties through induction of ROS-mediated apoptosis and p53-driven cell-cycle arrest in endometrial cancer cell lines (Ishikawa, HEC-1A, KLE). Int J Mol Sci. 2021; 22: 8268.
OpenUrl
140.↵
2. Zhang G,
3. He J,
4. Ye X,
5. Zhu J,
6. Hu X,
7. Shen M, et al.
β-Thujaplicin induces autophagic cell death, apoptosis, and cell cycle arrest through ROS-mediated Akt and p38/ERK MAPK signaling in human hepatocellular carcinoma. Cell Death Dis. 2019; 10: 255.
OpenUrl
141.↵
2. Kim SA,
3. Kang OH,
4. Kwon DY.
Cryptotanshinone induces cell cycle arrest and apoptosis of NSCLC cells through the PI3K/Akt/GSK-3β pathway. Int J Mol Sci. 2018; 19: 2739.
OpenUrl
142.↵
2. Spagnuolo C,
3. Russo GL,
4. Orhan IE,
5. Habtemariam S,
6. Daglia M,
7. Sureda A, et al.
Genistein and cancer: current status, challenges, and future directions. Adv Nutr. 2015; 6: 408–19.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
143.↵
2. Park C,
3. Cha H-J,
4. Lee H,
5. Hwang-Bo H,
6. Ji SY,
7. Kim MY, et al.
Induction of G2/M cell cycle arrest and apoptosis by genistein in human bladder cancer T24 cells through inhibition of the ROS-dependent PI3k/Akt signal transduction pathway. Antioxidants (Basel). 2019; 8: 327.
OpenUrl
144.↵
2. Di X,
3. Andrews DM,
4. Tucker CJ,
5. Yu L,
6. Moore AB,
7. Zheng X, et al.
A high concentration of genistein down-regulates activin A, Smad3 and other TGF-β pathway genes in human uterine leiomyoma cells. Exp Mol Med. 2012; 44: 281–92.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
145.↵
2. Park JH,
3. Oh EJ,
4. Choi YH,
5. Kang CD,
6. Kang HS,
7. Kim DK, et al.
Synergistic effects of dexamethasone and genistein on the expression of Cdk inhibitor p21WAF1/CIP1 in human hepatocellular and colorectal carcinoma cells. Int J Oncol. 2001; 18: 997–1002.
OpenUrl PubMed
146.↵
2. Hwang KA,
3. Kang NH,
4. Yi BR,
5. Lee HR,
6. Park MA,
7. Choi KC.
Genistein, a soy phytoestrogen, prevents the growth of BG-1 ovarian cancer cells induced by 17β-estradiol or bisphenol A via the inhibition of cell cycle progression. Int J Oncol. 2013; 42: 733–40.
OpenUrl PubMed
147.↵
2. Wang K,
3. Feng X,
4. Chai L,
5. Cao S,
6. Qiu F.
The metabolism of berberine and its contribution to the pharmacological effects. Drug Metab Rev. 2017; 49: 139–57.
OpenUrl
148.↵
2. Mantena SK,
3. Sharma SD,
4. Katiyar SK.
Berberine, a natural product, induces G1-phase cell cycle arrest and caspase-3-dependent apoptosis in human prostate carcinoma cells. Mol Cancer Ther. 2006; 5: 296–308.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
149.↵
2. Zhang RR,
3. Tian HY,
4. Tan YF,
5. Chung TY,
6. Sun XH,
7. Xia X, et al.
Structures, chemotaxonomic significance, cytotoxic and Na(+),<softenter>K(+)-ATPase inhibitory activities of new cardenolides from Asclepias curassavica. Org Biomol Chem. 2014; 12: 8919–29.
OpenUrl CrossRef
150.↵
2. Leu WJ,
3. Wang CT,
4. Hsu JL,
5. Chen IS,
6. Chang HS,
7. Guh JH.
Ascleposide, a natural cardenolide, induces anticancer signaling in human castration-resistant prostatic cancer through Na(+)/K(+)-ATPase internalization and tubulin acetylation. Prostate. 2020; 80: 305–18.
OpenUrl
151.↵
2. Bretones G,
3. Delgado MD,
4. Leon J.
Myc and cell cycle control. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2015; 1849: 506–16.
OpenUrl CrossRef
152.↵
2. Asghar U,
3. Witkiewicz AK,
4. Turner NC,
5. Knudsen ES.
The history and future of targeting cyclin-dependent kinases in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015; 14: 130–46.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
153.↵
2. Suzuki A,
3. Kawano H,
4. Hayashida M,
5. Hayasaki Y,
6. Tsutomi Y,
7. Akahane K.
Procaspase 3/p21 complex formation to resist fas-mediated cell death is initiated as a result of the phosphorylation of p21 by protein kinase A. Cell Death Differ. 2000; 7: 721–8.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
154.↵
2. Eymin B,
3. Haugg M,
4. Droin N,
5. Sordet O,
6. Dimanche-Boitrel MT,
7. Solary E.
p27Kip1 induces drug resistance by preventing apoptosis upstream of cytochrome c release and procaspase-3 activation in leukemic cells. Oncogene. 1999; 18: 1411–18.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
155.↵
2. Yu SY,
3. Liao CH,
4. Chien MH,
5. Tsai TY,
6. Lin JK,
7. Weng MS.
Induction of p21(Waf1/Cip1) by garcinol via downregulation of p38-MAPK signaling in p53-independent H1299 lung cancer. J Agric Food Chem. 2014; 62: 2085–95.
OpenUrl
156.↵
2. Shahrestanaki MK,
3. Bagheri M,
4. Ghanadian M,
5. Aghaei M,
6. Jafari SM.
Centaurea cyanus extracted 13-O-acetylsolstitialin A decrease Bax/Bcl-2 ratio and expression of cyclin D1/Cdk-4 to induce apoptosis and cell cycle arrest in MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cell lines. J Cell Biochem. 2019; 120: 18309–319.
OpenUrl
157.↵
2. Li J,
3. Wang Q,
4. Wang Z,
5. Cui N,
6. Yang B,
7. Niu W, et al.
Tetrandrine inhibits colon carcinoma HT-29 cells growth via the Bcl-2/Caspase 3/PARP pathway and G1/S phase. Biosci Rep. 2019; 39: BSR20182109.
158.↵
2. Li L,
3. Thakur K,
4. Cao YY,
5. Liao BY,
6. Zhang JG,
7. Wei ZJ.
Anticancerous potential of polysaccharides sequentially extracted from Polygonatum cyrtonema Hua in Human cervical cancer Hela cells. Int J Biol Macromol. 2020; 148: 843–50.
OpenUrl
159.↵
2. Gao LL,
3. Li FR,
4. Jiao P,
5. Yang MF,
6. Zhou XJ,
7. Si YH, et al.
Paris chinensis dioscin induces G2/M cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in human gastric cancer SGC-7901 cells. World J Gastroenterol. 2011; 17: 4389–95.
OpenUrl PubMed
160.↵
2. Li CY,
3. Wang Y,
4. Wang HL,
5. Shi Z,
6. An N,
7. Liu YX, et al.
Molecular mechanisms of Lycoris aurea agglutinin-induced apoptosis and G2/M cell cycle arrest in human lung adenocarcinoma A549 cells, both in vitro and in vivo. Cell Prolif. 2013; 46: 272–82.
OpenUrl
161.↵
2. Lee SM,
3. Kwon JI,
4. Choi YH,
5. Eom HS,
6. Chi GY.
Induction of G2/M arrest and apoptosis by water extract of Strychni Semen in human gastric carcinoma AGS cells. Phytother Res. 2008; 22: 752–8.
OpenUrl PubMed
162.↵
2. Qi LW,
3. Zhang Z,
4. Zhang CF,
5. Anderson S,
6. Liu Q,
7. Yuan CS, et al.
Anti-Colon Cancer Effects of 6-Shogaol Through G2/M Cell Cycle Arrest by p53/p21-cdc2/cdc25A Crosstalk. Am J Chin Med. 2015; 43: 743–56.
OpenUrl
163.↵
2. Yao Y,
3. Zhang YW,
4. Sun LG,
5. Liu B,
6. Bao YL,
7. Lin H, et al.
Juglanthraquinone C, a novel natural compound derived from Juglans mandshurica Maxim, induces S phase arrest and apoptosis in HepG2 cells. Apoptosis. 2012; 17: 832–41.
OpenUrl PubMed
164.↵
2. Wang J,
3. Pan Y,
4. Hu J,
5. Ma Q,
6. Xu Y,
7. Zhang Y, et al.
Tea polyphenols induce S phase arrest and apoptosis in gallbladder cancer cells. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2018; 51: e6891.
165.↵
2. Ibrahim SR,
3. Mohamed GA.
Litchi chinensis: medicinal uses, phytochemistry, and pharmacology. J Ethnopharmacol. 2015; 174: 492–513.
OpenUrl
166.
2. Hsu CP,
3. Lin CC,
4. Huang CC,
5. Lin YH,
6. Chou JC,
7. Tsia YT, et al.
Induction of apoptosis and cell cycle arrest in human colorectal carcinoma by Litchi seed extract. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2012; 2012: 341479.
167.↵
2. Guo H,
3. Luo H,
4. Yuan H,
5. Xia Y,
6. Shu P,
7. Huang X, et al.
Litchi seed extracts diminish prostate cancer progression via induction of apoptosis and attenuation of EMT through Akt/GSK-3β signaling. Sci Rep. 2017; 7: 41656.
168.↵
2. Ma J,
3. Hu X,
4. Liao C,
5. Xiao H,
6. Zhu Q,
7. Li Y, et al.
Gypenoside L inhibits proliferation of liver and esophageal cancer cells by inducing senescence. Molecules. 2019; 24: 1054.
OpenUrl
169.↵
2. Swanton C.
Cell-cycle targeted therapies. Lancet Oncol. 2004; 5: 27–36.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
170.↵
2. Zhai S,
3. Senderowicz AM,
4. Sausville EA,
5. Figg WD.
Flavopiridol, a novel cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, in clinical development. Ann Pharmacother. 2002; 36: 905–11.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
171.↵
2. Blagosklonny MV.
Flavopiridol, an inhibitor of transcription: implications, problems and solutions. Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex). 2004; 3: 1537–42.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
172.↵
2. Zhao B,
3. Bower MJ,
4. McDevitt PJ,
5. Zhao H,
6. Davis ST,
7. Johanson KO, et al.
Structural basis for Chk1 inhibition by UCN-01. J Biol Chem. 2002; 277: 46609–15.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
173.↵
2. Kim ES.
Midostaurin: first global approval. Drugs. 2017; 77: 1251–59.
OpenUrl
174.↵
2. MacCallum DE,
3. Melville J,
4. Frame S,
5. Watt K,
6. Anderson S,
7. Gianella-Borradori A, et al.
Seliciclib (CYC202, R-Roscovitine) induces cell death in multiple myeloma cells by inhibition of RNA polymerase II-dependent transcription and down-regulation of Mcl-1. Cancer Res. 2005; 65: 5399–407.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
175.↵
2. Khalil HS,
3. Mitev V,
4. Vlaykova T,
5. Cavicchi L,
6. Zhelev N.
Discovery and development of Seliciclib. how systems biology approaches can lead to better drug performance. J Biotechnol. 2015; 202: 40–9.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
176.↵
2. Stark GR,
3. Taylor WR.
Control of the G2/M transition. Mol Biotechnol. 2006; 32: 227–48.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
177.↵
2. Ke CS,
3. Liu HS,
4. Yen CH,
5. Huang GC,
6. Cheng HC,
7. Huang CY, et al.
Curcumin-induced Aurora-A suppression not only causes mitotic defect and cell cycle arrest but also alters chemosensitivity to anticancer drugs. J Nutr Biochem. 2014; 25: 526–39.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
178.↵
2. Liu HS,
3. Ke CS,
4. Cheng HC,
5. Huang CY,
6. Su CL.
Curcumin-induced mitotic spindle defect and cell cycle arrest in human bladder cancer cells occurs partly through inhibition of aurora A. Mol Pharmacol. 2011; 80: 638–46.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
179.↵
2. Schwarz K,
3. Dobiasch S,
4. Nguyen L,
5. Schilling D,
6. Combs SE.
Modification of radiosensitivity by Curcumin in human pancreatic cancer cell lines. Sci Rep. 2020; 10: 3815.
OpenUrl
180.↵
2. Mosieniak G,
3. Sliwinska MA,
4. Przybylska D,
5. Grabowska W,
6. Sunderland P,
7. Bielak-Zmijewska A, et al.
Curcumin-treated cancer cells show mitotic disturbances leading to growth arrest and induction of senescence phenotype. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2016; 74: 33–43.
OpenUrl
181.↵
2. Li Y,
3. Gong Y,
4. Li L,
5. Abdolmaleky HM,
6. Zhou J-R.
Bioactive tanshinone I inhibits the growth of lung cancer partly via downregulation of Aurora A function. Mol Carcinog. 2013; 52: 535–43.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
182.↵
2. Gong Y,
3. Li Y,
4. Lu Y,
5. Li L,
6. Abdolmaleky H,
7. Blackburn GL, et al.
Bioactive tanshinones in Salvia miltiorrhiza inhibit the growth of prostate cancer cells in vitro and in mice. Int J Cancer. 2011; 129: 1042–52.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
183.↵
2. Gong Y,
3. Li Y,
4. Abdolmaleky HM,
5. Li L,
6. Zhou J-R.
Tanshinones inhibit the growth of breast cancer cells through epigenetic modification of Aurora A expression and function. PLoS One. 2012; 7: e33656.
184.↵
2. Anand P,
3. Kunnumakkara AB,
4. Newman RA,
5. Aggarwal BB.
Bioavailability of curcumin: problems and promises. Mol Pharm. 2007; 4: 807–18.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
185.↵
2. Wang L,
3. Wang X,
4. Chen H,
5. Zu X,
6. Ma F,
7. Liu K, et al.
Gossypin inhibits gastric cancer growth by direct targeting of AURKA and RSK2. Phytother Res. 2019; 33: 640–50.
OpenUrl
186.↵
2. Fan Y,
3. Lu H,
4. Ma H,
5. Feng F,
6. Hu X,
7. Zhang Q, et al.
Bioactive compounds of Eriocaulon sieboldianum blocking proliferation and inducing apoptosis of HepG2 cells might be involved in Aurora kinase inhibition. Food Funct. 2015; 6: 3746–59.
OpenUrl
187.↵
2. Nguyen TN,
3. Feizbakhsh O,
4. Sfecci E,
5. Baratte B,
6. Delehouze C,
7. Garcia A, et al.
Kinase-based screening of marine natural extracts leads to the identification of a cytotoxic high molecular weight metabolite from the mediterranean sponge Crambe tailliezi. Mar Drugs. 2019; 17: 569.
OpenUrl
188.↵
2. Liu Q,
3. Jiao Z,
4. Liu Y,
5. Li Z,
6. Shi X,
7. Wang W, et al.
Chemical profiling of San-Huang decoction by UPLC-ESI-Q-TOF-MS. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2016; 131: 20–32.
OpenUrl
189.↵
2. Xu Y,
3. Chen X,
4. Chen X,
5. Bian W,
6. Yao C,
7. Zhang X, et al.
San Huang Decoction downregulates Aurora kinase A to inhibit breast cancer cell growth and enhance chemosenstivity to anti-tumor drugs. Pathol Res Pract. 2016; 212: 696–703.
OpenUrl
190.↵
2. Hnit SST,
3. Yao M,
4. Xie C,
5. Ge G,
6. Bi L,
7. Jin S, et al.
Transcriptional regulation of G2/M regulatory proteins and perturbation of G2/M Cell cycle transition by a traditional Chinese medicine recipe. J Ethnopharmacol. 2020; 251: 112526.
191.↵
2. Shakeel I,
3. Basheer N,
4. Hasan GM,
5. Afzal M,
6. Hassan MI.
Polo-like Kinase 1 as an emerging drug target: structure, function and therapeutic implications. J Drug Target. 2021; 29: 168–84.
OpenUrl
192.↵
2. Gheghiani L,
3. Wang L,
4. Zhang Y,
5. Moore XTR,
6. Zhang J,
7. Smith SC, et al.
PLK1 induces chromosomal instability and overrides cell-cycle checkindicates drive tumorigenesis. Cancer Res. 2021; 81: 1293–307.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
193.↵
2. Liang H,
3. Liu H,
4. Kuang Y,
5. Chen L,
6. Ye M,
7. Lai L.
Discovery of targeted covalent natural products against PLK1 by herb-based screening. J Chem Inf Model. 2020; 60: 4350–58.
OpenUrl
194.↵
2. Xu G,
3. Yan X,
4. Hu Z,
5. Zheng L,
6. Ding K,
7. Zhang Y, et al.
Glucocappasalin induces G2/M-Phase arrest, apoptosis, and autophagy pathways by targeting CDK1 and PLK1 in cervical carcinoma cells. Front Pharmacol. 2021; 12: 671138.
195.↵
2. Qazzaz ME,
3. Raja VJ,
4. Lim KH,
5. Kam TS,
6. Lee JB,
7. Gershkovich P, et al.
In vitro anticancer properties and biological evaluation of novel natural alkaloid jerantinine B. Cancer Lett. 2016; 370: 185–97.
OpenUrl
196.↵
2. Ren X,
3. Liu J,
4. Hu L,
5. Liu Q,
6. Wang D,
7. Ning X.
Caffeic acid phenethyl ester inhibits the proliferation of HEp2 cells by regulating Stat3/Plk1 pathway and inducing S phase arrest. Biol Pharm Bull. 2019; 42: 1689–93.
OpenUrl
197.↵
2. Shan HM,
3. Shi Y,
4. Quan J.
Identification of green tea catechins as potent inhibitors of the polo-box domain of polo-like kinase 1. ChemMedChem. 2015; 10: 158–63.
OpenUrl
198.↵
2. Yu L,
3. Lang Y,
4. Hsu CC,
5. Chen WM,
6. Chiang JC,
7. Hsieh JT, et al.
Mitotic phosphorylation of tumor suppressor DAB2IP maintains spindle assembly checkpoint and chromosomal stability through activating PLK1-Mps1 signal pathway and stabilizing mitotic checkpoint complex. Oncogene. 2022; 41: 489–501.
OpenUrl
199.↵
2. Xie Y,
3. Wang A,
4. Lin J,
5. Wu L,
6. Zhang H,
7. Yang X, et al.
Mps1/TTK: a novel target and biomarker for cancer. J Drug Target. 2017; 25: 112–8.
OpenUrl
200.↵
2. Zhang X,
3. Ling Y,
4. Guo Y,
5. Bai Y,
6. Shi X,
7. Gong F, et al.
Mps1 kinase regulates tumor cell viability via its novel role in mitochondria. Cell Death Dis. 2016; 7: e2292.
201.↵
2. Herbert KJ,
3. Ashton TM,
4. Prevo R,
5. Pirovano G,
6. Higgins GS.
T-LAK cell-originated protein kinase (TOPK): an emerging target for cancer-specific therapeutics. Cell Death Dis. 2018; 9: 1089.
OpenUrl
202.↵
2. Kamath K,
3. Wilson L,
4. Cabral F,
5. Jordan MA.
BetaIII-tubulin induces paclitaxel resistance in association with reduced effects on microtubule dynamic instability. J Biol Chem. 2005; 280: 12902–907.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
203.↵
2. Sirotnak FM,
3. Danenberg KD,
4. Chen J,
5. Fritz F,
6. Danenberg PV.
Markedly decreased binding of vincristine to tubulin in vinca alkaloid-resistant Chinese hamster cells is associated with selective overexpression of alpha and beta tubulin isoforms. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2000; 269: 21–4.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
204.↵
2. Beretta GL,
3. Gatti L,
4. Perego P,
5. Zaffaroni N.
Camptothecin resistance in cancer: insights into the molecular mechanisms of a DNA-damaging drug. Curr Med Chem. 2013; 20: 1541–65.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
205.↵
2. Ghawanmeh AA,
3. Al-Bajalan HM,
4. Mackeen MM,
5. Alali FQ,
6. Chong KF.
Recent developments on (-)-colchicine derivatives: synthesis and structure-activity relationship. Eur J Med Chem. 2020; 185: 111788.
206.↵
2. Abdifetah O,
3. Na-Bangchang K.
Pharmacokinetic studies of nanoparticles as a delivery system for conventional drugs and herb-derived compounds for cancer therapy: a systematic review. Int J Nanomedicine. 2019; 14: 5659–77.
OpenUrl
207.↵
2. Bernabeu E,
3. Helguera G,
4. Legaspi MJ,
5. Gonzalez L,
6. Hocht C,
7. Taira C, et al.
Paclitaxel-loaded PCL-TPGS nanoparticles: in vitro and in vivo performance compared with Abraxane®. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2014; 113: 43–50.
OpenUrl
208.↵
2. Shukla M,
3. Jaiswal S,
4. Sharma A,
5. Srivastava PK,
6. Arya A,
7. Dwivedi AK, et al.
A combination of complexation and self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system for enhancing oral bioavailability and anticancer efficacy of curcumin. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2017; 43: 847–61.
OpenUrl
209.
2. Lollo G,
3. Ullio-Gamboa G,
4. Fuentes E,
5. Matha K,
6. Lautram N,
7. Benoit JP.
In vitro anti-cancer activity and pharmacokinetic evaluation of curcumin-loaded lipid nanocapsules. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2018; 91: 859–67.
OpenUrl
210.↵
2. Ramaswamy S,
3. Dwarampudi LP,
4. Kadiyala M,
5. Kuppuswamy G,
6. Reddy KVVS,
7. Kumar CKA, et al.
Formulation and characterization of chitosan encapsulated phytoconstituents of curcumin and rutin nanoparticles. Int J Biol Macromol. 2017; 104(Pt B): 1807–12.
OpenUrl
211.↵
2. Ruiz-Moreno AJ,
3. Dömling A,
4. Velasco-Velázquez MA.
Reverse docking for the identification of molecular targets of anticancer compounds. Methods Mol Biol. 2021; 2174: 31–43.
OpenUrl
212.↵
2. Toplak Z,
3. Hendrickx LA,
4. Gubic S,
5. Mozina S,
6. Zegura B,
7. Stern A, et al.
3D pharmacophore-based discovery of novel KV10.1 inhibitors with antiproliferative activity. Cancers (Basel). 2021; 13: 1244.
OpenUrl
213.↵
2. Wei X,
3. Wu X,
4. Cheng Z,
5. Wu Q,
6. Cao C,
7. Xu X, et al.
Botanical drugs: a new strategy for structure-based target prediction. Brief Bioinform. 2022; 23: bbab425.

In this issue

Download PDF

Email Article

Citation Tools

Cited By...

Erianin inhibits the proliferation of lung cancer cells by suppressing mTOR activation and disrupting pyrimidine metabolism

Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Show more Review

Keywords

[1] 1.↵

Sung H,
Ferlay J,
Siegel RL,
Laversanne M,
Soerjomataram I,
Jemal A, et al.
Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: a Cancer Journal For Clinicians. 2021; 71: 209–49.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[3] Sung H,

[4] Ferlay J,

[5] Siegel RL,

[6] Laversanne M,

[7] Soerjomataram I,

[8] Jemal A, et al.

[9] 2.↵

Bray F,
Ferlay J,
Soerjomataram I,
Siegel RL,
Torre LA,
Jemal A.
Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018; 68: 394–424.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[11] Bray F,

[12] Ferlay J,

[13] Soerjomataram I,

[14] Siegel RL,

[15] Torre LA,

[16] Jemal A.

[17] 3.↵

Trosko JE.
On the potential origin and characteristics of cancer stem cells. Carcinogenesis. 2021; 42: 905–12.
OpenUrl

[19] Trosko JE.

[20] 4.↵

McIntosh JR.
Mitosis. Cold Spring Harbor Perspect Biol. 2016; 8(9): a023218.

[22] McIntosh JR.

[23] 5.↵

Steinmetz MO,
Prota AE.
Microtubule-targeting agents: strategies to hijack the Cytoskeleton. Trends Cell Biol. 2018; 28: 776–92.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[25] Steinmetz MO,

[26] Prota AE.

[27] 6.↵

Gudimchuk NB,
McIntosh JR.
Regulation of microtubule dynamics, mechanics and function through the growing tip. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2021; 22: 777–95.
OpenUrl

[29] Gudimchuk NB,

[30] McIntosh JR.

[31] 7.↵

Jordan MA,
Wilson L.
Microtubules as a target for anticancer drugs. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004; 4: 253–65.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[33] Jordan MA,

[34] Wilson L.

[35] 8.↵

Lezaja A,
Altmeyer M.
Dealing with DNA lesions: when one cell cycle is not sufficient. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2021; 70: 27–36.
OpenUrl

[37] Lezaja A,

[38] Altmeyer M.

[39] 9.↵

Orthwein A,
Fradet-Turcotte A,
Noordermeer SM,
Canny MD,
Brun CM,
Strecker J, et al.
Mitosis inhibits DNA double-strand break repair to guard against telomere fusions. Science. 2014; 344: 189–93.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[41] Orthwein A,

[42] Fradet-Turcotte A,

[43] Noordermeer SM,

[44] Canny MD,

[45] Brun CM,

[46] Strecker J, et al.

[47] 10.↵

Williams GH,
Stoeber K.
The cell cycle and cancer. J Pathol. 2012; 226: 352–64.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[49] Williams GH,

[50] Stoeber K.

[51] 11.↵

Sedlacek HH.
Mechanisms of action of flavopiridol. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol. 2001; 38: 139–70.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[53] Sedlacek HH.

[54] 12.↵

Du R,
Huang C,
Liu K,
Li X,
Dong Z.
Targeting AURKA in Cancer: molecular mechanisms and opportunities for cancer therapy. Mol Cancer. 2021; 20: 15.
OpenUrl CrossRef

[56] Du R,

[57] Huang C,

[58] Liu K,

[59] Li X,

[60] Dong Z.

[61] 13.↵

Goodson HV,
Jonasson EM.
Microtubules and microtubule-associated proteins. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2018; 10: a022608.

[63] Goodson HV,

[64] Jonasson EM.

[65] 14.↵

Kops G,
Gassmann R.
Crowning the kinetochore: the fibrous corona in chromosome segregation. Trends Cell Biol. 2020; 30: 653–67.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[67] Kops G,

[68] Gassmann R.

[69] 15.↵

Magidson V,
O’Connell CB,
Loncarek J,
Paul R,
Mogilner A,
Khodjakov A.
The spatial arrangement of chromosomes during prometaphase facilitates spindle assembly. Cell. 2011; 146: 555–67.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[71] Magidson V,

[72] O’Connell CB,

[73] Loncarek J,

[74] Paul R,

[75] Mogilner A,

[76] Khodjakov A.

[77] 16.↵

Kavallaris M.
Microtubules and resistance to tubulin-binding agents. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010; 10: 194–204.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[79] Kavallaris M.

[80] 17.↵

Khwaja S,
Kumar K,
Das R,
Negi AS.
Microtubule associated proteins as targets for anticancer drug development. Bioorg Chem. 2021; 116: 105320.

[82] Khwaja S,

[83] Kumar K,

[84] Das R,

[85] Negi AS.

[86] 18.↵

Horwitz SB.
Mechanism of action of taxol. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 1992; 13: 134–36.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[88] Horwitz SB.

[89] 19.↵

Scribano CM,
Wan J,
Esbona K,
Tucker JB,
Lasek A,
Zhou AS, et al.
Chromosomal instability sensitizes patient breast tumors to multipolar divisions induced by paclitaxel. Sci Transl Med. 2021; 13: eabd4811.

[91] Scribano CM,

[92] Wan J,

[93] Esbona K,

[94] Tucker JB,

[95] Lasek A,

[96] Zhou AS, et al.

[97] 20.↵

Weaver BA.
How Taxol/paclitaxel kills cancer cells. Mol Biol Cell. 2014; 25: 2677–81.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[99] Weaver BA.

[100] 21.↵

Budd GT,
Barlow WE,
Moore HC,
Hobday TJ,
Stewart JA,
Isaacs C, et al.
SWOG S0221: a phase III trial comparing chemotherapy schedules in high-risk early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33: 58–64.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[102] Budd GT,

[103] Barlow WE,

[104] Moore HC,

[105] Hobday TJ,

[106] Stewart JA,

[107] Isaacs C, et al.

[108] 22.↵

Fountzilas G,
Dafni U,
Dimopoulos MA,
Koutras A,
Skarlos D,
Papakostas P, et al.
A randomized phase III study comparing three anthracycline-free taxane-based regimens, as first line chemotherapy, in metastatic breast cancer: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009; 115: 87–99.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[110] Fountzilas G,

[111] Dafni U,

[112] Dimopoulos MA,

[113] Koutras A,

[114] Skarlos D,

[115] Papakostas P, et al.

[116] 23.↵

Ma Y,
Yu S,
Ni S,
Zhang B,
Kung ACF,
Gao J, et al.
Targeting strategies for enhancing paclitaxel specificity in chemotherapy. Front Cell Devel Biol. 2021; 9: 626910.

[118] Ma Y,

[119] Yu S,

[120] Ni S,

[121] Zhang B,

[122] Kung ACF,

[123] Gao J, et al.

[124] 24.↵

Mu L,
Feng SS.
A novel controlled release formulation for the anticancer drug paclitaxel (Taxol): PLGA nanoparticles containing vitamin E TPGS. J Control Release. 2003; 86: 33–48.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[126] Mu L,

[127] Feng SS.

[128] 25.

Fenyvesi F,
Kiss T,
Fenyvesi E,
Szente L,
Veszelka S,
Deli MA, et al.
Randomly methylated beta-cyclodextrin derivatives enhance taxol permeability through human intestinal epithelial Caco-2 cell monolayer. J Pharm Sci. 2011; 100: 4734–44.
OpenUrl PubMed

[130] Fenyvesi F,

[131] Kiss T,

[132] Fenyvesi E,

[133] Szente L,

[134] Veszelka S,

[135] Deli MA, et al.

[136] 26.↵

Runowicz CD,
Wiernik PH,
Einzig AI,
Goldberg GL,
Horwitz SB.
Taxol in ovarian cancer. Cancer. 1993; 71: 1591–96.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[138] Runowicz CD,

[139] Wiernik PH,

[140] Einzig AI,

[141] Goldberg GL,

[142] Horwitz SB.

[143] 27.↵

Moreno-Aspitia A,
Perez EA.
North Central Cancer Treatment Group N0531: Phase II Trial of weekly albumin-bound paclitaxel (ABI-007; Abraxane) in combination with gemcitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2005; 6: 361–4.
OpenUrl PubMed

[145] Moreno-Aspitia A,

[146] Perez EA.

[147] 28.↵
Albumin-bound paclitaxel (Abraxane) for advanced breast cancer. Med Lett Drugs Ther. 2005; 47: 39–40.
OpenUrl PubMed

[148] 29.↵

Bernabeu E,
Cagel M,
Lagomarsino E,
Moretton M,
Chiappetta DA.
Paclitaxel: What has been done and the challenges remain ahead. Int J Pharm. 2017; 526: 474–95.
OpenUrl

[150] Bernabeu E,

[151] Cagel M,

[152] Lagomarsino E,

[153] Moretton M,

[154] Chiappetta DA.

[155] 30.↵

Zhang J,
Pan Y,
Shi Q,
Zhang G,
Jiang L,
Dong X, et al.
Paclitaxel liposome for injection (Lipusu) plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin in the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic lung squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel controlled clinical study. Cancer Commun (Lond). 2022; 42: 3–16.
OpenUrl

[157] Zhang J,

[158] Pan Y,

[159] Shi Q,

[160] Zhang G,

[161] Jiang L,

[162] Dong X, et al.

[163] 31.↵

Ye L,
He J,
Hu Z,
Dong Q,
Wang H,
Fu F, et al.
Antitumor effect and toxicity of Lipusu in rat ovarian cancer xenografts. Food Chem Toxicol. 2013; 52: 200–6.
OpenUrl

[165] Ye L,

[166] He J,

[167] Hu Z,

[168] Dong Q,

[169] Wang H,

[170] Fu F, et al.

[171] 32.↵

Yang JI,
Jin B,
Kim SY,
Li Q,
Nam A,
Ryu MO, et al.
Antitumour effects of Liporaxel (oral paclitaxel) for canine melanoma in a mouse xenograft model. Vet Comp Oncol. 2020; 18: 152–60.
OpenUrl

[173] Yang JI,

[174] Jin B,

[175] Kim SY,

[176] Li Q,

[177] Nam A,

[178] Ryu MO, et al.

[179] 33.↵

Shanmugam S,
Im HT,
Sohn YT,
Kim YI,
Park JH,
Park ES, et al.
Enhanced oral bioavailability of paclitaxel by solid dispersion granulation. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2015; 41: 1864–76.
OpenUrl

[181] Shanmugam S,

[182] Im HT,

[183] Sohn YT,

[184] Kim YI,

[185] Park JH,

[186] Park ES, et al.

[187] 34.↵

Lee KW,
Lee KH,
Zang DY,
Park YI,
Shin DB,
Kim JW, et al.
Phase I/II study of weekly oraxol for the second-line treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer. Oncologist. 2015; 20: 896–7.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[189] Lee KW,

[190] Lee KH,

[191] Zang DY,

[192] Park YI,

[193] Shin DB,

[194] Kim JW, et al.

[195] 35.↵

Jedličková H,
Vokurka S,
Vojtíšek R,
Malečková A.
Alopecia and hair damage induced by oncological therapy. Klin Onkol. 2019; 32: 353–9.
OpenUrl

[197] Jedličková H,

[198] Vokurka S,

[199] Vojtíšek R,

[200] Malečková A.

[201] 36.↵

Kong TH,
Han SM,
Seo YJ.
Chondritis of the ear after docetaxel-carboplatin chemotherapy. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2019; 25: 975–9.
OpenUrl

[203] Kong TH,

[204] Han SM,

[205] Seo YJ.

[206] 37.↵

Groth-Pedersen L,
Ostenfeld MS,
Høyer-Hansen M,
Nylandsted J,
Jäättelä M.
Vincristine induces dramatic lysosomal changes and sensitizes cancer cells to lysosome-destabilizing siramesine. Cancer Res. 2007; 67: 2217–25.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[208] Groth-Pedersen L,

[209] Ostenfeld MS,

[210] Høyer-Hansen M,

[211] Nylandsted J,

[212] Jäättelä M.

[213] 38.↵

Stanton RA,
Gernert KM,
Nettles JH,
Aneja R.
Drugs that target dynamic microtubules: a new molecular perspective. Med Res Rev. 2011; 31: 443–81.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[215] Stanton RA,

[216] Gernert KM,

[217] Nettles JH,

[218] Aneja R.

[219] 39.↵

Jordan MA,
Thrower D,
Wilson L.
Effects of vinblastine, podophyllotoxin and nocodazole on mitotic spindles. implications for the role of microtubule dynamics in mitosis. J Cell Sci. 1992; 102 (Pt 3): 401–16.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[221] Jordan MA,

[222] Thrower D,

[223] Wilson L.

[224] 40.↵

Ahmadi SE,
Rahimi S,
Zarandi B,
Chegeni R,
Safa M.
MYC: a multipurpose oncogene with prognostic and therapeutic implications in blood malignancies. J Hematol Oncol. 2021; 14: 121.
OpenUrl

[226] Ahmadi SE,

[227] Rahimi S,

[228] Zarandi B,

[229] Chegeni R,

[230] Safa M.

[231] 41.↵

Rohrberg J,
Van de Mark D,
Amouzgar M,
Lee JV,
Taileb M,
Corella A, et al.
MYC dysregulates mitosis, revealing cancer vulnerabilities. Cell Rep. 2020; 30: 3368–82.e3367.
OpenUrl

[233] Rohrberg J,

[234] Van de Mark D,

[235] Amouzgar M,

[236] Lee JV,

[237] Taileb M,

[238] Corella A, et al.

[239] 42.↵

Koch HB,
Zhang R,
Verdoodt B,
Bailey A,
Zhang CD,
Yates JR, et al.
Large-scale identification of c-MYC-associated proteins using a combined TAP/MudPIT approach. Cell Cycle. 2007; 6: 205–17.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[241] Koch HB,

[242] Zhang R,

[243] Verdoodt B,

[244] Bailey A,

[245] Zhang CD,

[246] Yates JR, et al.

[247] 43.↵

Sjostrom SK,
Finn G,
Hahn WC,
Rowitch DH,
Kenney AM.
The Cdk1 complex plays a prime role in regulating N-myc phosphorylation and turnover in neural precursors. Dev Cell. 2005; 9: 327–38.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[249] Sjostrom SK,

[250] Finn G,

[251] Hahn WC,

[252] Rowitch DH,

[253] Kenney AM.

[254] 44.↵

Becker S,
Kiecke C,
Schafer E,
Sinzig U,
Deuper L,
Trigo-Mourino P, et al.
Destruction of a microtubule-bound MYC reservoir during mitosis contributes to vincristine’s anticancer activity. Mol Cancer Res. 2020; 18: 859–72.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[256] Becker S,

[257] Kiecke C,

[258] Schafer E,

[259] Sinzig U,

[260] Deuper L,

[261] Trigo-Mourino P, et al.

[262] 45.↵

Takigawa N,
Tanimoto M.
[Vinca alkaloid and MDR1]. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2008; 35: 1086–89.
OpenUrl PubMed

[264] Takigawa N,

[265] Tanimoto M.

[266] 46.↵

Mondal A,
Gandhi A,
Fimognari C,
Atanasov AG,
Bishayee A.
Alkaloids for cancer prevention and therapy: current progress and future perspectives. Eur J Pharmacol. 2019; 858: 172472.

[268] Mondal A,

[269] Gandhi A,

[270] Fimognari C,

[271] Atanasov AG,

[272] Bishayee A.

[273] 47.↵

Frampton JE,
Moen MD.
Vinflunine. Drugs. 2010; 70: 1283–93.
OpenUrl PubMed

[275] Frampton JE,

[276] Moen MD.

[277] 48.

Yun-San Yip A,
Yuen-Yuen Ong E,
Chow LW-C.
Vinflunine: clinical perspectives of an emerging anticancer agent. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2008; 17: 583–91.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[279] Yun-San Yip A,

[280] Yuen-Yuen Ong E,

[281] Chow LW-C.

[282] 49.↵

Bernardini A,
Duenas M,
Martin-Soberon MC,
Rubio C,
Suarez-Cabrera C,
Ruiz-Palomares R, et al.
Genomic landscape of vinflunine response in metastatic urothelial cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14: 378.
OpenUrl

[284] Bernardini A,

[285] Duenas M,

[286] Martin-Soberon MC,

[287] Rubio C,

[288] Suarez-Cabrera C,

[289] Ruiz-Palomares R, et al.

[290] 50.↵

Bhattacharyya B,
Panda D,
Gupta S,
Banerjee M.
Anti-mitotic activity of colchicine and the structural basis for its interaction with tubulin. Med Res Rev. 2008; 28: 155–83.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[292] Bhattacharyya B,

[293] Panda D,

[294] Gupta S,

[295] Banerjee M.

[296] 51.↵

Eleftheriou G,
Bacis G,
Fiocchi R,
Sebastiano R.
Colchicine-induced toxicity in a heart transplant patient with chronic renal failure. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2008; 46: 827–30.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[298] Eleftheriou G,

[299] Bacis G,

[300] Fiocchi R,

[301] Sebastiano R.

[302] 52.↵

Finkelstein Y,
Aks SE,
Hutson JR,
Juurlink DN,
Nguyen P,
Dubnov-Raz G, et al.
Colchicine poisoning: the dark side of an ancient drug. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2010; 48: 407–14.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[304] Finkelstein Y,

[305] Aks SE,

[306] Hutson JR,

[307] Juurlink DN,

[308] Nguyen P,

[309] Dubnov-Raz G, et al.

[310] 53.↵

Krzywik J,
Aminpour M,
Maj E,
Mozga W,
Wietrzyk J,
Tuszyński JA, et al.
New series of double-modified colchicine derivatives: synthesis, cytotoxic effect and molecular docking. Molecules. 2020; 25: 3540.
OpenUrl

[312] Krzywik J,

[313] Aminpour M,

[314] Maj E,

[315] Mozga W,

[316] Wietrzyk J,

[317] Tuszyński JA, et al.

[318] 54.↵

Robinson PC,
Terkeltaub R,
Pillinger MH,
Shah B,
Karalis V,
Karatza E, et al.
Consensus statement regarding the efficacy and safety of long-term low-dose colchicine in gout and cardiovascular disease. Am J Med. 2022; 135: 32–8.
OpenUrl

[320] Robinson PC,

[321] Terkeltaub R,

[322] Pillinger MH,

[323] Shah B,

[324] Karalis V,

[325] Karatza E, et al.

[326] 55.↵

Dubey KK,
Kumar P,
Labrou NE,
Shukla P.
Biotherapeutic potential and mechanisms of action of colchicine. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2017; 37: 1038–47.
OpenUrl

[328] Dubey KK,

[329] Kumar P,

[330] Labrou NE,

[331] Shukla P.

[332] 56.↵

Antúnez-Mojica M,
Rodríguez-Salarichs J,
Redondo-Horcajo M,
León A,
Barasoain I,
Canales Á, et al.
Structural and biochemical characterization of the interaction of tubulin with potent natural analogues of podophyllotoxin. J Nat Prod. 2016; 79: 2113–21.
OpenUrl

[334] Antúnez-Mojica M,

[335] Rodríguez-Salarichs J,

[336] Redondo-Horcajo M,

[337] León A,

[338] Barasoain I,

[339] Canales Á, et al.

[340] 57.↵

Giri A,
Lakshmi Narasu M.
Production of podophyllotoxin from Podophyllum hexandrum: a potential natural product for clinically useful anticancer drugs. Cytotechnology. 2000; 34: 17–26.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[342] Giri A,

[343] Lakshmi Narasu M.

[344] 58.↵

Sackett DL.
Podophyllotoxin, steganacin and combretastatin: natural products that bind at the colchicine site of tubulin. Pharmacol Therapeutics. 1993; 59: 163–228.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[346] Sackett DL.

[347] 59.↵

Zhao Y,
Li D,
Wei M,
Du R,
Yan Z.
The ester derivatives obtained by C-ring modification of podophyllotoxin induce apoptosis and inhibited proliferation in PC-3M cells via down-regulation of PI3K/Akt signaling pathway. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2021; 46: 128174.

[349] Zhao Y,

[350] Li D,

[351] Wei M,

[352] Du R,

[353] Yan Z.

[354] 60.↵

Zhao W,
Cong Y,
Li HM,
Li S,
Shen Y,
Qi Q, et al.
Challenges and potential for improving the druggability of podophyllotoxin-derived drugs in cancer chemotherapy. Nat Prod Rep. 2021; 38: 470–88.
OpenUrl

[356] Zhao W,

[357] Cong Y,

[358] Li HM,

[359] Li S,

[360] Shen Y,

[361] Qi Q, et al.

[362] 61.↵

Gamage CDB,
Park SY,
Yang Y,
Zhou R,
Taş İ,
Bae WK, et al.
Deoxypodophyllotoxin exerts anti-cancer effects on colorectal cancer cells through induction of apoptosis and suppression of tumorigenesis. Int J Mol Sci. 2019; 20: 2612.
OpenUrl

[364] Gamage CDB,

[365] Park SY,

[366] Yang Y,

[367] Zhou R,

[368] Taş İ,

[369] Bae WK, et al.

[370] 62.↵

Zang X,
Wang G,
Cai Q,
Zheng X,
Zhang J,
Chen Q, et al.
A Promising microtubule inhibitor deoxypodophyllotoxin exhibits better efficacy to multidrug-resistant breast cancer than paclitaxel via avoiding efflux transport. Drug Metab Dispos. 2018; 46: 542–51.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[372] Zang X,

[373] Wang G,

[374] Cai Q,

[375] Zheng X,

[376] Zhang J,

[377] Chen Q, et al.

[378] 63.↵

Futaki K,
Takahashi M,
Tanabe K,
Fujieda A,
Kigoshi H,
Kita M.
Synthesis and biological activities of aplyronine a analogues toward the development of antitumor protein-protein interaction inducers between actin and tubulin: conjugation of the C1-C9 macrolactone part and the C24-C34 side chain. ACS Omega. 2019; 4: 8598–613.
OpenUrl

[380] Futaki K,

[381] Takahashi M,

[382] Tanabe K,

[383] Fujieda A,

[384] Kigoshi H,

[385] Kita M.

[386] 64.

Yamada K,
Ojika M,
Kigoshi H,
Suenaga K.
Aplyronine A, a potent antitumour macrolide of marine origin, and the congeners aplyronines B-H: chemistry and biology. Nat Prod Rep. 2009; 26: 27–43.
OpenUrl PubMed

[388] Yamada K,

[389] Ojika M,

[390] Kigoshi H,

[391] Suenaga K.

[392] 65.↵

Kita M,
Kigoshi H.
Marine natural products that interfere with multiple cytoskeletal protein interactions. Nat Prod Rep. 2015; 32: 534–42.
OpenUrl

[394] Kita M,

[395] Kigoshi H.

[396] 66.↵

Chakrabarti KR,
Hessler L,
Bhandary L,
Martin SS.
Molecular Pathways: New signaling considerations when targeting cytoskeletal balance to reduce tumor growth. Clin Cancer Res. 2015; 21: 5209–14.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[398] Chakrabarti KR,

[399] Hessler L,

[400] Bhandary L,

[401] Martin SS.

[402] 67.↵

Kita M,
Hirayama Y,
Yoneda K,
Yamagishi K,
Chinen T,
Usui T, et al.
Inhibition of microtubule assembly by a complex of actin and antitumor macrolide aplyronine A. J Am Chem Soc. 2013; 135: 18089–95.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[404] Kita M,

[405] Hirayama Y,

[406] Yoneda K,

[407] Yamagishi K,

[408] Chinen T,

[409] Usui T, et al.

[410] 68.↵

Hirata K,
Muraoka S,
Suenaga K,
Kuroda T,
Kato K,
Tanaka H, et al.
Structure basis for antitumor effect of aplyronine a. J Mol Biol. 2006; 356: 945–54.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[412] Hirata K,

[413] Muraoka S,

[414] Suenaga K,

[415] Kuroda T,

[416] Kato K,

[417] Tanaka H, et al.

[418] 69.↵

Torijano-Gutierrez S,
Vilanova C,
Diaz-Oltra S,
Murga J,
Falomir E,
Carda M, et al.
The mechanism of the interactions of pironetin analog/combretastatin A-4 hybrids with tubulin. Arch Pharm (Weinheim). 2015; 348: 541–7.
OpenUrl

[420] Torijano-Gutierrez S,

[421] Vilanova C,

[422] Diaz-Oltra S,

[423] Murga J,

[424] Falomir E,

[425] Carda M, et al.

[426] 70.↵

Usui T,
Watanabe H,
Nakayama H,
Tada Y,
Kanoh N,
Kondoh M, et al.
The anticancer natural product pironetin selectively targets Lys352 of alpha-tubulin. Chem Biol. 2004; 11: 799–806.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[428] Usui T,

[429] Watanabe H,

[430] Nakayama H,

[431] Tada Y,

[432] Kanoh N,

[433] Kondoh M, et al.

[434] 71.↵

Yang J,
Wang Y,
Wang T,
Jiang J,
Botting CH,
Liu H, et al.
Pironetin reacts covalently with cysteine-316 of α-tubulin to destabilize microtubule. Nat Commun. 2016; 7: 12103.

[436] Yang J,

[437] Wang Y,

[438] Wang T,

[439] Jiang J,

[440] Botting CH,

[441] Liu H, et al.

[442] 72.↵

Castro-Gamero AM,
Pezuk JA,
Brassesco MS,
Tone LG.
G2/M inhibitors as pharmacotherapeutic opportunities for glioblastoma: the old, the new, and the future. Cancer Biol Med. 2018; 15: 354–74.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[444] Castro-Gamero AM,

[445] Pezuk JA,

[446] Brassesco MS,

[447] Tone LG.

[448] 73.↵

Tanabe K.
Microtubule depolymerization by kinase inhibitors: unexpected findings of dual inhibitors. Int J Mol Sci. 2017; 18: 2508.
OpenUrl

[450] Tanabe K.

[451] 74.↵

Stanković T,
Dinić J,
Podolski-Renić A,
Musso L,
Burić SS,
Dallavalle S, et al.
Dual inhibitors as a new challenge for cancer multidrug resistance treatment. Curr Med Chem. 2019; 26: 6074–106.
OpenUrl

[453] Stanković T,

[454] Dinić J,

[455] Podolski-Renić A,

[456] Musso L,

[457] Burić SS,

[458] Dallavalle S, et al.

[459] 75.↵

Yang H-W,
Hua M-Y,
Liu H-L,
Tsai R-Y,
Chuang C-K,
Chu P-C, et al.
Cooperative dual-activity targeted nanomedicine for specific and effective prostate cancer therapy. ACS Nano. 2012; 6: 1795–805.
OpenUrl PubMed

[461] Yang H-W,

[462] Hua M-Y,

[463] Liu H-L,

[464] Tsai R-Y,

[465] Chuang C-K,

[466] Chu P-C, et al.

[467] 76.

Madamsetty VS,
Pal K,
Dutta SK,
Wang E,
Mukhopadhyay D.
Targeted dual intervention-oriented drug-encapsulated (DIODE) nanoformulations for improved treatment of pancreatic cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2020; 12: 1189.
OpenUrl

[469] Madamsetty VS,

[470] Pal K,

[471] Dutta SK,

[472] Wang E,

[473] Mukhopadhyay D.

[474] 77.

Houdaihed L,
Evans JC,
Allen C.
In vivo evaluation of dual-targeted nanoparticles encapsulating paclitaxel and everolimus. Cancers (Basel). 2019; 11: 752.
OpenUrl

[476] Houdaihed L,

[477] Evans JC,

[478] Allen C.

[479] 78.↵

Grojean M,
Schwarz MA,
Schwarz JR,
Hassan S,
von Holzen U,
Zhang C, et al.
Targeted dual inhibition of c-Met/VEGFR2 signalling by foretinib improves antitumour effects of nanoparticle paclitaxel in gastric cancer models. J Cell Mol Med. 2021; 25: 4950–61.
OpenUrl

[481] Grojean M,

[482] Schwarz MA,

[483] Schwarz JR,

[484] Hassan S,

[485] von Holzen U,

[486] Zhang C, et al.

[487] 79.↵

O’Connor MJ.
Targeting the DNA damage response in cancer. Mol Cell. 2015; 60: 547–60.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[489] O’Connor MJ.

[490] 80.↵

Curtin NJ.
DNA repair dysregulation from cancer driver to therapeutic target. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012; 12: 801–17.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[492] Curtin NJ.

[493] 81.↵

Gillman R,
Lopes Floro K,
Wankell M,
Hebbard L.
The role of DNA damage and repair in liver cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer. 2021; 1875: 188493.

[495] Gillman R,

[496] Lopes Floro K,

[497] Wankell M,

[498] Hebbard L.

[499] 82.↵

Sun S,
Osterman MD,
Li M.
Tissue specificity of DNA damage response and tumorigenesis. Cancer Biol Med. 2019; 16: 396–414.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[501] Sun S,

Main menu

User menu

Search

Anti-tumor pharmacology of natural products targeting mitosis

Abstract

keywords

Introduction

Microtubule

Paclitaxel (Taxol)

Vincristine

Colchicine

Podophyllotoxin

Aplyronine A (ApA)

Pironetin

DNA damage

Camptothecin (CPT)

Piperine (PIP)

Sulforaphane (SFN)

Resveratrol (RSV)

Mitosis-associated kinases

CDKs

Licorice

Hinokitiol

Cryptotanshinone (CTS)

Genistein

Berberine

Ascleposide

Others

Aurora kinase

Curcumin

Tanshinone I

Gossypin

Others

Other mitosis-related kinases

Discussion

Grant support

Conflict of interest statement

Author contributions

Acknowledgements

Footnotes

References

In this issue

Citation Manager Formats

Jump to section

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Similar Articles

Keywords

Navigate

More Information

For Authors

Journal Services