Review
Targeting emerging cancer hallmarks by transition metal complexes: Epigenetic reprogramming and epitherapies. Part II

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2022.214899Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The development of many cancer types is associated with global epigenetic changes.

  • Metal complexes were shown to interfere with the function of DNMTs, HMDs and HDACs.

  • Metal prodrugs can be activated upon intracellular triggers.

  • Selective release of epigenetic modulators might translate into lower toxicity.

  • Transition metal complexes represent a promising alternative to existing epitherapies.

Abstract

In this last decade, our understanding of the complex factors and processes that drive cancer development and progression has broadened in scope and grown in depth. Today, it is widely held that as a disease, cancer can be characterized in terms of specific hallmarks that normal cells need to acquire to transform into malignant cells. Because it is both logical and intuitive, the hallmarks of cancer concept has been adopted by both the scientific and medical community as an organising principle to understand cancer and to develop new therapeutic approaches. Several new hallmarks have emerged in recent years arising from a better understanding of the crosstalk between cancer cells and their surrounding tumor microenvironment. The current review is based on the collaborative efforts of bioinorganic chemists, molecular biologists and medical doctors. It focuses on the use of transition metals as therapeutic drugs to treat malignancies arising from epigenetic dysregulation and compares the therapeutic approaches of transition metal complexes over existing drugs in clinical use.

Introduction

In 2000, Weinberg and Hanahan organized the evidence of cancer development and summarised the common capabilities shared by most human tumors into six essential alterations that are required by cells to acquire malignant phenotype [1]. These six essential alterations, including self-sufficiency in growth signals, insensitivity to anti-growth signals, tissue invasion and metastasis, limitless replicative potential, sustained angiogenesis and evading apoptosis were termed the “Hallmarks of Cancer” (Fig. 1). In 2011, two new hallmarks – deregulating cellular energetics and avoiding immune destruction, as well as two enabling characteristics – genome instability and tumor-promoting inflammation, were further included into the classification (Fig. 1) [2]. Recently, Hanahan further expanded the existing classification by the addition of four new hallmarks and enabling characteristics, including unlocking phenotypic plasticity, nonmutational epigenetic reprogramming, polymorphic microbiomes and senescent cells (Fig. 1) [3]. The newly added hallmarks and enabling characteristics revealed the emerging role of tumor microenvironment (TME) in cancer pathogenesis. Since TME was characterized by altered metal homeostasis, we hypothesized that rationally-designed transition metal complexes might interfere with the function of various TME components and might represent a promising therapeutic option for treating cancers. In Part I of this review, the therapeutic strategies developed for targeting phenotypic plasticity and cancer microbiome with transition metal were summarised and extensively covered [4]. Herein, we will focus on the use of transition metals as therapeutic drugs to treat malignancies arising from epigenetic dysregulation and compare the therapeutic approaches of transition metal complexes over existing treatment options.

The term “epigenetics” was originally proposed by C. H. Waddington in 1942 from the perspective of embryology [5] and literally means “in addition to or beyond genetics” [6]. Thus, epigenetics encompasses any process that results in a change in genes without altering DNA and can serve as a link between genotype and phenotype [7]. Epigenetic processes influence the implementation of the genetic code throughout the life of the cell and are affected by a wide range of factors, both physiological (e.g. embryological, aging) [8] and pathological (e.g. cancer) [9], [10]. Embryological epigenetic rearrangements have a greater impact on the implementation of the genetic program [11] because they occur in embryonic stem cells and can be transferred to more differentiated cell populations, in contrast to the changes that occur in adult cells [12], [13], [14]. However, pathological factors, such as the process of cancer development, were also shown to significantly influence epigenetic regulation of cells [15], [16], [17].

The analysis of differential epigenetic mechanisms in healthy and cancer patients revealed the potential role of epigenetics as a therapeutic target for cancer. Therapeutic modulation of epigenetic mechanisms governing cancer cells might be used to enhance the cytotoxicity of chemotherapeutic and targeted treatment regimens. On the other hand, regulation of epigenetic mechanisms in healthy cells might be useful for enhancing their defense activity. According to the current classification of major epigenetic mechanisms, they can be divided into three groups: 1) writers, which are responsible for modifications of DNA and histones; 2) readers, which recognize and elucidate these modifications, and 3) erasers, which are the proteins that can remove these modifications [18], [19]. This review will summarize the role of each group of epigenetic modulators in cancer development and describe the existing epitherapies, which are either approved by the FDA (Table 1) or currently investigated in clinical trials (Table 2). Subsequently, we will summarize transition metal complexes that have been developed to interfere with different epigenetic modulators involved in the nonmutational epigenetic reprogramming.

Section snippets

Epigenetic writers

Writers can modify the structure of DNA and histone proteins by attaching various chemical groups. These modifications include methylation [20], acetylation [21], phosphorylation [22], ubiquitylation [23], SUMOylation [24] etc., with methylation and acetylation being the most common and consequential. Methylation involves the addition of a methyl group to either DNA or histone proteins, while acetylation involves the addition of an acetyl group to histone proteins, but not DNA [20], [25], [26].

Epigenetic readers

Epigenetic readers are cellular proteins that recognize the epigenetic modifications carried out by writers in order to mediate their effects. These reader proteins contain specific domains that recognize and bind to the certain regions of DNA or histones that were modified by epigenetic writers. Epigenetic readers can be subdivided into three main groups: DNA methylation readers, histone methylation readers and histone acetylation readers. DNA methylation readers can identify methylated DNA

Epigenetic erasers

Epigenetic erasers are proteins responsible for removing modifications to histones and DNA generated by epigenetic writers to regulate gene expression. The most studied family of epigenetic erasers is that of histone deacetylases (HDACs) [18], [199].

Conclusions and future perspectives

A decade that has passed after the publication of the extended version of “Hallmarks of cancer” was associated with the unforeseen progress in cancer research and acquisition of large volume of new data. It was revealed that the process of cancer development was not only based on the genomic instability, but also mutation-free epigenetic changes. Therefore, nonmutational epigenetic reprogramming was recently suggested to be included in the updated classification of “cancer hallmarks”. The

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

W.H.A. acknowledges financial support from Ministry of Education Singapore (Project No. A-0004134-00-00 and A-0004539-00-00). M.V.B. acknowledges financial support from City University of Hong Kong (Project No.7005614 and 9610518) and Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund Board (Project No. 9211315). The authors acknowledge Tibor Hajsz for help with the generation of Figure 1.

References (326)

  • Q. Wang et al.

    J. Hepatol.

    (2021)
  • P.W. Laird et al.

    Cell

    (1995)
  • G. Garcia-Manero et al.

    Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk.

    (2022)
  • M. Parhizkar et al.

    Nanoscale Adv.

    (2020)
  • X. Chen et al.

    Acta Pharm. Sin. B

    (2020)
  • T.A. Brevini et al.

    Clin. Epigenetics

    (2016)
  • C. Gros et al.

    J. Biol. Chem.

    (2015)
  • S. Paşa et al.

    Inorg. Chem. Commun.

    (2021)
  • Y. Okada et al.

    Cell

    (2005)
  • K. Menghrajani et al.

    Blood

    (2019)
  • E.M. Stein et al.

    Blood

    (2018)
  • C.W. Chan et al.

    Polyhedron

    (2022)
  • M. Huang et al.

    Eur. J. Med. Chem.

    (2019)
  • L. Wang et al.

    Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.

    (2008)
  • D. Hanahan

    Cancer Discov.

    (2022)
  • M.R. Chang et al.

    Coord. Chem. Rev.

    (2022)
  • C.H. Waddington

    Int. J. Epidemiol.

    (2012)
  • B. Weinhold

    Environ. Health. Perspect.

    (2006)
  • S.P. Barros et al.

    J. Dent. Res.

    (2009)
  • N.M. Al Aboud et al.

    Genetics, Epigenetic Mechanism, in: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing

    Treasure Island (FL)

    (2022)
  • L.B. Hesson et al.

    Genetics and epigenetics: A historical overview

  • B. Carter et al.

    Nat. Rev. Genet.

    (2021)
  • L. Rinaldi et al.

    FEBS J.

    (2015)
  • X. Zhang et al.

    Stem Cells Int.

    (2021)
  • M.H. Fitz-James et al.

    Nat. Rev. Genet.

    (2022)
  • S. Ilango et al.

    Front. Biosci.

    (2020)
  • B. Madhu et al.

    Sci. Rep.

    (2020)
  • S. Sharma et al.

    Carcinogenesis

    (2010)
  • L.D. Moore et al.

    Neuropsychopharmacology

    (2013)
  • S. Li et al.

    Front

    Oncol.

    (2020)
  • C.A. Cremona et al.

    Biomolecules

    (2012)
  • P. Gujral et al.

    Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol.

    (2020)
  • T. Baubec et al.

    Swiss Med. Wkly.

    (2020)
  • D. Husmann et al.

    Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.

    (2019)
  • J. Loaeza-Loaeza et al.

    Genes

    (2020)
  • R.M. Erdmann et al.

    PLoS Genet.

    (2020)
  • K. Hata et al.

    Development

    (2002)
  • R.H.A. Masalmeh et al.

    Nat. Commun.

    (2021)
  • A. Zhu et al.

    Carcinogenesis

    (2021)
  • L.A. Al-Kharashi et al.

    Oncotarget

    (2017)
  • Cited by (0)

    1

    Equally contributing authors.

    View full text