YM155

Survivin and YM155: How faithful is the liaison?
Anke Rauch a,1, Dorle Hennig a,1, Claudia Schäfer a,1, Matthias Wirth b, Christian Marx a,
Thorsten Heinzel a, Günter Schneider b, Oliver H. Krämer c,⁎
a Center for Molecular Biomedicine, Institute for Biochemistry and Biophysics, Department of Biochemistry, Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Hans-Knöll-Straße 2, 07745 Jena, Germany
b II Department of Internal Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
c Department of Toxicology, University Medical Center, Obere Zahlbacher Str. 67, 55131 Mainz, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:
Received 17 November 2013
Received in revised form 1 January 2014
Accepted 4 January 2014
Available online 16 January 2014

Keywords: Cancer Chemotherapy Molecular target Specificity Survivin
YM155
a b s t r a c t

Survivin belongs to the family of apoptosis inhibitors (IAPs), which antagonizes the induction of cell death. Dys- regulated expression of IAPs is frequently observed in cancers, and the high levels of survivin in tumors compared to normal adult tissues make it an attractive target for pharmacological interventions. The small imidazolium- based compound YM155 has recently been reported to block the expression of survivin via inhibition of the survivin promoter. Recent data, however, question that this is the sole and main effect of this drug, which is al- ready being tested in ongoing clinical studies. Here, we critically review the current data on YM155 and other new experimental agents supposed to antagonize survivin. We summarize how cells from various tumor entities and with differential expression of the tumor suppressor p53 respond to this agent in vitro and as murine xeno- grafts. Additionally, we recapitulate clinical trials conducted with YM155. Our article further considers the poten- cy of YM155 in combination with other anti-cancer agents and epigenetic modulators. We also assess state-of- the-art data on the sometimes very promiscuous molecular mechanisms affected by YM155 in cancer cells.
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents
⦁ Introduction 203
⦁ Survivin regulates cell survival and is appreciated as a drug target 203
⦁ Factors controlling the expression and stability of survivin 203
⦁ Alternative splicing of the survivin RNA 203
⦁ Regulation of survivin through direct posttranslational modifications 203
⦁ Transcription factors controlling expression of the survivin gene 203
⦁ HDAC activity is necessary for the expression of survivin 205
⦁ Association of the cell cycle with the expression of survivin 205
⦁ Discovery of YM155 205
⦁ Cellular uptake of YM155 206
⦁ Efficacy of YM155 against cultured cancer cells and in experimental animals 206
⦁ Prostate cancer 206
⦁ Leukemia and lymphoma 206
⦁ Leukemia 206
⦁ Lymphoma 209
⦁ Breast cancer 210
⦁ Skin cancers 210
⦁ Melanoma 210
⦁ Merkel cell carcinoma 210
⦁ Neuro- and glioblastoma 210
⦁ Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma 211
⦁ YM155 as single treatment 211
⦁ YM155 as combinatorial treatment 211
⦁ Sarcomas 211

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 6131 179218; fax: +49 06131 178499.
E-mail address: [email protected] (O.H. Krämer).
1 Equal contribution.

0304-419X/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbcan.2014.01.003

⦁ Pancreatic cancer 211
⦁ Hepatocellular carcinoma 211
⦁ Wilms tumor 212
⦁ Bladder cancer 212
⦁ Non-small cell lung cancer 212
⦁ YM155 as a modulator of stem cell fate 213
⦁ Clinical studies 213
⦁ Blood cancers 213
⦁ Solid tumors 213
⦁ Is YM155 a survivin-specific inhibitor? 215
⦁ Conclusions 216
Acknowledgement 216
References 216

⦁ Introduction

⦁ Survivin regulates cell survival and is appreciated as a drug target

The BIRC5 gene encodes the protein baculoviral inhibitor of apopto- sis repeat-containing-5, which is more commonly known as survivin. With 16.5 kDa this protein is the smallest member of the inhibitor of ap- optosis (IAP) family [1,2]. While it is clear that survivin restricts the ex- ecution of apoptosis it has still not been fully resolved how survivin controls cell death [3]. Survivin has a critical impact on cell cycle control especially during cytokinesis and for the mitotic spindle checkpoint. Ac- cordingly, survivin expression peaks in the G2/M-phase of the cell cycle and it might provide a link between cell cycle control, mitotic catastro- phe, and apoptosis [4–6].
Expression of survivin correlates with metastatic spread, tumor in- vasiveness, and poor prognosis associated with chemoresistance [1,7]. Such cancer-relevant functions already make it an attractive anti- cancer target [8]. The facts that survivin (I) is required for fetal develop- ment but usually absent in adult tissues, (II) is again expressed in tu- mors, and (III) is an important survival factor for malignant cells, point out that survivin is a bona fide molecule for pharmacological interven- tion strategies. Thus, survivin represents an “Achilles’ heel” of several cancer types [3,4,9,10].
In this review, we summarize knowledge on agents tested as specific inhibitors of survivin expression. We particularly focus on the polyaromatic quinone YM155, which is used in several ongoing clinical trials. We try to shed light on the question whether the beneficial effects of YM155 and related experimental drugs might rely on inhibitory ef- fects on survivin or rather on promiscuous, previously unanticipated effects.

⦁ Factors controlling the expression and stability of survivin

Survivin has no enzymatic activity that can be targeted. Hence, it is necessary to first characterize how the BIRC5/survivin gene and the survivin protein are regulated.

⦁ Alternative splicing of the survivin RNA
The survivin gene gives rise to an mRNA that can yield the four splice variants survivin, survivin-2α, survivin-2B, survivin-Δ-Ex-3, and survivin- 3B. These are translated into proteins with overlapping and individual functions [11–13]. Since the tumor suppressor p53 affects the splicing of the survivin mRNA in breast cancer and probably also in other trans- formed cells, the ratio of survivin variants may be relevant for tumori- genesis [14,15].

⦁ Regulation of survivin through direct posttranslational modifications Apart from mRNA-based mechanisms the shuttling of survivin be- tween the cytoplasm and the nucleus and posttranslational modifica- tions determine its functions [3,4]. Examples are the phosphorylation

of survivin at threonine 34 by the cyclin dependent kinase 1 (CDK1) which promotes the progression of mitosis in a complex with cyclin B1 (the link between survivin and cell cycle progression is discussed more detailed in Section 1.2.5). This phosphorylation is necessary for the maintenance of a complex between survivin and the apical cell death inducer caspase 9 [16]. Furthermore, phosphorylation of survivin by CDK1 attenuates proliferation to promote cellular survival [17]. Via this mechanism and through the transcription factor p53 and caspase- 2, survivin affects a cell death pathway termed mitotic catastrophe [1,4,6,18,19].
Posttranslational protein modification by acetylation also controls survivin. In estrogen receptor (ER)-positive luminal breast cancer cells survivin is controlled by acetylation of the lysine residue K129 [20]. The histone acetyltransferase (HAT) CREB binding protein (CBP) and histone deacetylase 6 (HDAC6) antagonistically regulate survivin acety- lation and thereby its cellular localization [20,21].
With a 30 min half-life, the survivin protein is short lived and its deg- radation is regulated by the ubiquitin-dependent proteasomal machinery [22,23]. This mechanism involves the X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis (XIAP)-associated factor 1 (XAF1). XAF1 can activate the ubiquitin ligase activity of XIAP to target survivin for ubiquitinylation. This posttranslational modification of lysine residues within survivin promotes its proteasomal degradation.

⦁ Transcription factors controlling expression of the survivin gene
As for the multitude of functions of survivin, there are many up- stream factors controlling its expression (Fig. 1). An example is p53 being a major player in the control of cell fate decisions including trans- formation and chemoresistance [24,25]. In resting cells, p53 directly and indirectly binds the survivin promoter to inhibit transcription of this gene lacking a TATA box [26–31]. For example, p53 antagonizes the ac- tivating effect of the transcription factors specificity protein-1 on the survivin promoter [26,32,33].
Of note, there is a stress-dependent reversal of the p53-dependent suppression of survivin expression in cells exposed to replication stress. Under such conditions p53 becomes necessary to induce survivin [28]. We interpret this as a fail-safe mechanism that facilitates cellular repair processes and regular mitosis in p53 proficient cells [25]. Moreover, if the damage is persistent or too severe such cells can still undergo the p53-dependent apoptosis program preventing transformation [25]. This p53- and replication stress-dependent mechanism controlling survivin involves the transcription factor NF-κB [25]. Already in unstimulated cells NF-κB activates the survivin gene [28,34], and this may be a reason for certain tumor promoting activities of NF-κB. In p53 mutant cells, a p53/NF-κB crosstalk enhances the expression of survivin, and such cells have increased chemoresistance [15,28].
Expression of a gene requires the concerted interplay of chromatin modifications, with acetylation of lysine residues in histones being often found in actively transcribed regions [35,36]. The epigenetic regu- lators DNA methyltransferase-1 (DNMT1), histone methyltransferase

Fig. 1. Control of survivin expression at the mRNA and protein level. Several transcription factors control survivin. Additionally, the proteasome restricts the stability of survivin. YM155 blocks SP1 and this may reduce survivin expression. See text for further details.

G9a, heterochromatin protein-1 (HP1), and HDAC1 inhibit expression of the survivin gene in p53-positive colon carcinomas, glioblastomas, and other cancer cells [32,37–39]. Interestingly, the chemotherapeutic agent doxorubicin (Fig. 2), which integrates into DNA and inhibits topoisomerase relaxing DNA during replication represses survivin. A current model suggests that activated p53 recruits the above mentioned epigenetic regulators to condense and inactivate the survivin gene [32,37–39]. In contrast to this regulatory level, the suppressive effect of SIRT1 on survivin can equally occur in a p53 deleted setting [31].
Many additional factors control the expression of survivin at the mRNA and protein levels [40] (Fig. 1). For example, the inducible tran- scription factor signal transducer and activator of transcription-3 (STAT3) positively regulates survivin expression [41,42], and WNT- induced signaling involving nuclear β-catenin and T cell factor-4 (TCF4) induces survivin in colon cancer stem cells to avoid mitotic ca- tastrophe and apoptosis [43,44]. The forkhead transcription factor FOXO3 is activated by high levels of intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS), and this activation of FOXO3 directly suppresses the expression of survivin [45]. This process allows for a rapid loss of cytoplasmic survivin whereas mitochondrial survivin shows higher stability [45].
The interplay between FOXO3 and survivin is mutual and a para- digm for a feed-back regulation involving mitochondrial survivin and one of its regulators (Fig. 1). Survivin plays a key role in protecting cells from FOXO3-induced mitochondrial apoptosis after stress [46]. Survivin interacts and recruits the dynamin-related protein 1 (DRP1) to mitochondria and thereby initiates their fission and fragmentation. In this case fragmentation is not causal for apoptosis but protects cells against FOXO-induced apoptosis. By a yet not entirely understood mechanism survivin is involved in lowering mitochondrial ROS levels. This pathway ties in with reduced protein levels of complexes I and IV from the mitochondrial electron transfer chain (ETC) and it depends on the interaction of survivin and DRP1 at mitochondria [46]. As a result of the decreased ETC complexes, the respiratory capacity, ROS produc- tion, and FOXO3-induced apoptosis are lowered. This may lead to a

Fig. 2. Chemical structure of YM155, doxorubicin, terameprocol. Their functions and activ- ities on survivin are summarized in the text.

higher resistance against chemotherapy [47]. Therefore, cells become more dependent on aerobic glycolysis. They increase glucose uptake and turnover and start to produce more lactate. Accordingly, the inhibi- tion of glycolysis re-sensitizes cells for FOXO3-induced apoptosis al- though survivin is still present at mitochondria [46].

⦁ HDAC activity is necessary for the expression of survivin
Despite the above summarized negative control of the survivin pro- moter by deacetylases, histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi), agents evoking the (hyper) acetylation of histones and non-histone proteins, reduce survivin levels [29,34,48,49]. The details on this mechanism re- main to be fully resolved and, based on the multitude of cellular and molecular effects altered by HDACi [50], likely involve more than one signaling pathway.
Data from melanoma cells reveal that acetylated STAT1 disrupts the NF-κB-dependent induction of survivin [34,49]. Several other studies using various cancer-derived cells confirmed that HDACi reduce survivin expression. For example, the HDACi Trichostatin A (TSA) causes a cell cycle and cyclin B-dependent repression of survivin in prostate cancer cells [51]; both, the HDACi suberanilohydroxamic acid (SAHA) and TSA reduce the level of survivin in colon cancer cells [52,53]; the HDACi LBH589 (Panobinostat) antagonizes survivin mRNA expression and hepatocellular carcinoma growth [54]. The HDACi valproic acid (VPA) causes the proteasomal elimination of HDAC2 in transformed and primary cells [55] and also reduces the expression of survivin in cells derived from melanomas and colon carcinomas [29,34,49]. Since the depletion of HDAC2 after treatment with VPA or RNAi eliminated survivin and reduced the migration of human MDA-MB-231 breast ad- enocarcinoma cells [56], it is conceivable that the effect of VPA on HDAC2 can be sufficient to eliminate survivin in certain cancer cells. A possible mechanism underlying this regulation could be the control of p53 acetylation by HDAC2. HDAC2 specifically deacetylates the lysine reside K320 in the tetramerization domain of p53 and this correlates with an inability of p53 to suppress the survivin promoter [29].
In agreement with the above findings, HDACs and survivin are often
overexpressed together. For example, there is a statistically significant correlation between the mRNA levels of survivin and of HDAC1, -2, and
-11 in primary human liver carcinomas [54]. Experiments with mice showed that in p53-deficient mammary tumors the survivin gene is negatively controlled by deacetylation of histone H3 through the class III HDAC SIRT1 [31,57]. This NAD+-dependent sirtuin is not inhibited by HDACi used in ongoing clinical trials [50].
While these findings do not support the combined usage of HDACi and sirtuin inhibitors against survivin-dependent tumors, HDACi may combine well with the cytokine beta-interferon (IFNβ) to reduce survivin levels. IFNβ attenuates survivin expression via stabilization of a XIAP–XAF1–survivin complex [22,23] and this may complement the suppression of survivin through HDACi. Since IFNs are used as drugs against cancer [58] the reduction of survivin by IFNs may aid in tumor elimination. Novel IFN formulations [59,60] may increase such benefi- cial effects.
A recent report shows a further link between HDACi and survivin, with the underlying mechanism being linked to STAT3 phosphorylation [61]. A sodium-coupled monocarboxylate transporter termed solute carrier gene family 5A member 8 (SLC5A8) localizes to the plasma membrane and DNA methylation-dependent, p53-independent mecha- nisms frequently silence the SLC5A8 gene in breast tumors [62]. Of note, SLC5A8 can negatively regulate survivin in p53- and estrogen receptor- positive and negative cells (MCF-7/MDA-MB-231 cells) [61]. SLC5A8 facilitates the transport of endogenous HDACi (such as butyrate or pyru- vate) and causes the delocalization of survivin to the plasma membrane together with a decreased transcription of the survivin gene [61,62]. Since overexpression of SLC5A8 does not evoke acetylation of histone H4 at lysine residue K16 (H4K16), it was concluded that this transporter decreases survivin expression independent of its function to import endogenous HDACi. Furthermore, the negative effect of SLC5A8 on
survivin was not amplified in the presence of added pyruvate. SLC5A8 rather seems to reduce survivin via inhibition of STAT3 phosphorylation [61].
In a study testing human colon cancer-derived cells it was also found that overexpression of SLC5A8 does not evoke acetylation of histone H4 [63]. This work further reveals that pyruvate, but not its degradation product lactate, specifically inhibits the class I HDACs HDAC1 and HDAC3 [63]. Thus, the high conversion of pyruvate to lac- tate in cancer cells, the so-called Warburg effect [64,65], may serve to decrease the levels of an endogenous HDACi. It is though surprising that butyrate should only induce histone acetylation in breast cancer- derived MCF-7 cells ectopically expressing SLC5A8 [62] and that buty- rate does not inhibit recombinant and immunoprecipitated cellular HDAC2 [63]. It is well established that butyrate inhibits the enzymatic activity of HDAC2 [66] and being a fatty acid butyrate can also traverse the cellular lipid bilayer via passive diffusion [67]. Moreover, in cells bu- tyrate leads to the depletion of HDAC2 via proteasomal mechanisms [68,69]. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that a link exists between meta- bolic intermediates, histone acetylation, and survivin expression in can- cer cells.

⦁ Association of the cell cycle with the expression of survivin
Cell cycle progression affects the expression of survivin [4]. The levels of survivin peak during M-phase and the lowest survivin levels are found in cells arrested in the G1-phase of the cell cycle [70,71]. The CDK4–cyclin D kinase complex phosphorylates pRB and thereby promotes E2F-dependent gene expression accelerating cell cycle entry
[72] (Fig. 1). In pancreatic cancer cells the inhibition of CDK4 results in G1 arrest, decreased survivin expression, and increased sensitivity to- ward TRAIL-induced apoptosis [73]. Luciferase reporter assays of the proximal survivin promoter region harboring the E2F cis element show a significant loss of the promoter activity after CDK4 knockdown [73]. Interestingly, in normal human melanocytes, lacking the E2F isoforms E2F1 and E2F3, the binding of E2F2 to the proximal E2F site seems to re- press survivin gene expression [74]. However, E2F1, E2F2, and E2F3 can induce survivin in the human lung embryo cell line WI-38 [75]. Despite these contrary results both studies show that the retinoblastoma pro- tein (pRB), which recruits transcriptional corepressors to DNA-bound E2F, represses the survivin gene [74,75].
An influence of survivin on cell cycle progression has equally been discovered. In hepatoma cells survivin affects pRB phosphorylation and the activation of the CDK2/cyclin E kinase complex promoting G1- S-phase transition through inactivation of the cyclinD/CDK4 inhibitor p27 (KIP1) [76–78]. Like p27, p21 represses several cyclin-dependent kinases promoting cell cycle entry and/or progression [79], and a link between p21 (WAF/CIP1) and survivin was also identified. It was shown that only p21-proficient murine hematopoietic progenitor cells and not cells lacking the p21 gene can be protected by survivin against apoptosis [80]. These data add further credit to the complex interplay between survivin and its regulators.

⦁ Discovery of YM155

The discovery of YM155 (1-(2-Methoxyethyl)-2-methyl-4,9-dioxo- 3-(pyrazin-2-ylmethyl)-4,9-dihydro-1H-naphtho[2,3-d] imidazolium bromide; sepantronium bromide, Fig. 2) took place in the laboratories of the pharmaceutical company Astellas Pharma in 2007 [81]. Nakahara and colleagues used an artificial reporter system encompassing the survivin promoter to screen for compounds inhibiting its activity. They reported that YM155 specifically repressed survivin promoter activity with an IC50 of 0.54 nM. The initial screen identifying YM155 was done with human cervical epithelial carcinoma cells (HeLa) and with Chinese hamster ovary cells. Ensuing analyses with p53 null or mutant prostate cancer derived cells demonstrated that YM155 time- and dose-dependently suppressed survivin expression [81].

How might YM155 target expression of survivin? Researchers from Astellas subsequently found that the RNA binding proteins interleukin enhancer-binding factor-3 (ILF3/NF110) and p54/nrb associate with the survivin promoter. YM155 directly binds and disrupts the ILF3– p54/nrb complex [82]. The unique C-terminal region of ILF3/NF110 is important for both, promoting survivin expression and for a high affin- ity binding to YM155 [83]. Thus, ILF3/NF110 might be a physiological target through which YM155 suppresses survivin. An additive global ef- fect of ILF3/NF110 inhibition on cellular survival signaling is plausible.
YM155 may also suppress survivin expression through the disrup- tion of SP1 binding to the survivin core promoter [84] (Fig. 1). SP1 is a zinc finger transcription factor that preferentially binds GC-rich DNA se- quences. Remarkably, YM155 alters the localization of SP1 and overex- pression of SP1 could block the negative effect of YM155 on the survivin promoter [84]. Whether or not this mechanism may play a role in cancer cells, i.e. if different levels of SP1 loaded to the survivin promoter may confer resistance to YM155 should be investigated. Additionally, wider effects of YM155 on global SP1 binding to GC-rich promoter regions have to be considered. Moreover, the SP1 transcription factor has a general impact on cell cycle progression. Blocking SP1 leads to cell cycle arrest due to inhibition of cyclin D1 and induction of p27 (KIP1) [85]. Therefore, SP1 inhibition by YM155 may exert general anti- proliferative effects against tumor cells.
Moreover, it is surprising that it is yet unclear whether YM155 and other drugs targeting survivin also alter posttranslational modifications and thereby stability of the survivin protein.

⦁ Cellular uptake of YM155

There are several factors determining the uptake of a drug into the body and ultimately into cells. The same holds true for the excretion phase and both parameters determine the duration of desired and un- desired effects of the drug.
Tolcher and colleagues found in a phase I clinical study that the ex- cretion of YM155 can occur via the renal route [86]. Nonrenal elimina- tion via the hepatic route linked to excretion via the bile is considered as an additional way to eliminate intravenously administered YM155; metabolism of YM155 plays a minor role [87]. A study involving 33 Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors showed that no dose ad- justment is required for patients with mild renal impairment [88].
In another study enrolling 96 patients with non-small-cell lung can- cers (NSCLCs), hormone refractory prostate cancer, or unresectable melanoma were treated continuously with intravenous YM155. Cardiac and renal adverse events occurred in eight patients and the data collect- ed in this trial suggest that renal functions have to be monitored to pre- vent excess accumulation of YM155 [89].
In primary human hepatocytes the radioactively labeled hydrophilic cation [14C]-YM155 is taken up by the human organic cation transport- er 1 (OCT1/SLC22A1) and this process can be blocked with the physio- logical metabolite corticosteron [87]. Curiously, cancer cells and hepatocytes use divergent uptake mechanisms for YM155. While overexpressed OCT1 and OCT2 accelerated the uptake of [14C]YM155 into human epithelial kidney cells, OCT1, -2 and -3 are not mediating the uptake of YM155 into human solid tumor-derived cells and lympho- ma cells [90,91]. Further investigations are necessary to identify the de- tails on the cancer cell-specific uptake of YM155 and whether these can be exploited to augment the accumulation of YM155 in tumor tissue.
It is equally important to understand how YM155 is carried out of the cellular milieu. Inhibiting this pathway in tumors may increase the efficacy of YM155. In cells from the kidney and colon, the transport of YM155 out of cells may occur via the efflux transporter multidrug resis- tance protein-1/permeability glycoprotein/ATP-binding cassette, sub- family B, member 1 (MDR1/P-glycoprotein/ABCB1) [92]. Further data suggesting that specifically MDR1 affects the pharmacokinetics of YM155 were found in a study using neuroblastoma (NB) cells [93].
⦁ Efficacy of YM155 against cultured cancer cells and in experimental animals

Tables 1 and 2 list in vitro and murine xenograft studies conducted with YM155 alone and in combination schedules.

⦁ Prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is a common cause of death in men [94,95]. Prostate cancers are initially dependent on androgens and therefore sensitive to hormone antagonists and castration. During therapy such cancers be- come increasingly independent of androgens and/or express androgen receptor (AR) mutants hypersensitive to low hormone levels [96].
Nakahara and colleagues, who initially discovered YM155 [81], test- ed YM155′s effects on the p53-deficient human hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) cell lines PC3 and PPC1 using doses ranging from 10–100 nmol/L. While these researchers noted an inhibitory effect on survivin they found that up to 100 nmol/L YM155 did not alter the levels of other IAPs or BCL2 family members (c-IAP2, XIAP, BAD, BCL2, or BCL-XL) in these cancer-derived cells [81]. PC3, PPC1, and several fur- ther prostate cancer cells have a functional deletion of the p53 gene [97]. In addition, PC3 cells lack AR, STAT3, and STAT5. The fact that YM155 halts the growth of such cells even when they lack p53 [25] ap- pears very promising.
The activity of YM155 against HRPCs was also tested in murine sub- cutaneous and orthotopical PC3 xenograft tumor models. In this model, YM155 prevented tumor growth and suppressed survivin protein ex- pression without YM155 causing body weight loss or hematopoietic disturbances. Curiously, ~ 20-fold higher doses of YM155 were detect- able in tumors compared to plasma [81]. Accumulation of YM155 in prostate tumor cells in vivo was also shown in another study [98]. Nude mice xenografted with human prostate cancer-derived cells de- veloped tumors that could be infiltrated with subcutaneously adminis- tered radioactively labeled YM155 [81]. The distribution of YM155 was also analyzed with [11C]-YM155 applied to mice bearing human prostate tumor xenografts. High levels of radioactivity were found in the animals’ tumors, kidneys, livers, and ceca [98]. These pharmacokinetic data and the anti-cancer effects of YM155 support its usage in further tests. Sev- eral clinical trials encompassing prostate cancer patients were conduct-
ed (see below).
It was further shown that YM155 evokes both, apoptotic cell death and autophagy of prostate cancer cells. Remarkably, the levels of survivin translate into autophagy-dependent apoptosis, with autophagy preceding apoptosis [99].

⦁ Leukemia and lymphoma

⦁ Leukemia

⦁ YM155 as single treatment. YM155 proved effective against vari- ous pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) cells. Unexpectedly, while the levels of survivin in four ALL cell lines were comparable and peaked in the G2/M phase of the cell cycle, the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) of YM155 ranged between 17 nM to 560 nM [100]. In primary ALL cells, survivin levels varied more that in the cell lines and IC50 values from 10 nM to 1 mM were observed. The authors therefore concluded that factors other than survivin also determine the cellular sensitivity towards YM155 [100]. Perhaps MDR1 is such a factor as it is frequently overexpressed in E2A-HLF-positive ALL cells [101] (see also Section 4.5). The study further illustrates that ALL cells are sensitive to the inhibition of survivin by RNAi and that ALL cell death caused by these strategies is caspase-independent [100]. Tyner and colleagues fur- ther show that the silencing of p53 abrogates the anti-leukemic effects of YM155 and of RNAi against survivin in ALL cells. In addition, the phos- phorylation of p53 was found to be activated by YM155 [100]. These

Table 1
Evidence for the efficacy of YM155 alone and in combinatorial application against cultured cancer cells.
Tumor tissue origin Cell line(s) Molecular effect(s) and combination treatments Ref.

Prostate: HRPC
PC3, PPC1
YM155 (10 nM) suppressed expression of survivin and induced apoptosis [81]

Leukemia:
pediatric ALL cells
RCH-ACV (E2A–PBX1), REH (ETV6–RUNX1), SUPB15 (BCR–ABL),
HAL01 (E2A–HLF) and primary ALL patient samples
Inhibition of cellular viability, inhibition of survivin expression and induction of apoptosis
[100]

Adult T-cell leukemia (ATL) ATL-43b/ATL-55 10 nM or 100 nM YM155 significantly suppressed survivin expression,
dose-dependent inhibition of cell proliferation, induced apoptosis
[109]

Lymphoma:
GCB-DLBCL (NHL)
WSU-DLCL2, SU-DHL-4 Cell death induced by 1 nM YM155 combination with STAT3 inhibitors: synergistic induction of apoptosis
[119]

Leukemia and lymphoma HL-60, U937
Inhibition of cell growth with IC50 of 0.3 nM–0.8 nM, inhibition of survivin and MCL1 expression using 1 μM YM155, induction of apoptosis
[201]

Breast: TNBC
MRK-nu-1, MDA-MB-231-Luc-D3H2-LN YM155 (1–100 nM) shows anti-proliferative activity and triggered the
induction of apoptosis,
MRK-nu-1 Suppresses survivin expression in a dose-dependent manner (1 -10 nM)
[126]

Skin:
melanoma

Skin:
MCC
A375,
SK-MEL-5

MCV-positive:
MKL-1, MKL-2, MS-1, WaGa

MCV-negative: MCC13, BJ, BJhTERT
YM155 in the range of 1 to 100 nM decreases survivin mRNA, results in growth inhibition and apoptosis
combination with docetaxel:
YM155 abrogates docetaxel induced upregulation of survivin, higher rate of apoptosis than sum of single treatments
YM155 is highly active and selective for inhibiting MCV-positive MCC cell growth [(EC50), 1.34–12.2 nM]. MKL-1 cells: YM155 induces non-apoptotic cell death with autophagy but no mitotic catastrophe
Growth inhibition at YM155 concentrations one- to two-fold higher than needed for MCV-positive cells
[131]

[134]

Glioblastoma M059K and M059J Inhibition of cell growth with IC50 30–35 nM, suppression of survivin and securin expression, induction of cell death
[138]

Head and neck (HNSCC), NPC Type I
CAL27 and cisplatin resistant derivative Decrease of survivin protein and cell proliferation in a dose-dependent manner
combination with cisplatin:
YM155 restored sensitivity to cisplatin, reduced levels of survivin
TW01 500 nM YM155 abrogated the protective effect of TGFβ-induced survivin ex- pression
[145]

[146]

Sarcoma: ES
RD-ES, SK-ES-1, TC-32, TC-71 YM155 reduced cell growth and viability, EC50 ranging from 2.8–6.2 nM [152]

Pancreas: PDAC
MiaPaCa2 Combination with gemcitabine:
antagonizes the induction of survivin upon treatment with gemcitabine
PANC1 Reduction of EGFR, survivin, XIAP and PI3K protein, less phosphorylation of ERK and STAT3
[157]

[202]

Wilms tumor SK-NEP-1 Alteration of transcriptome, cell cycle arrest and apoptosis [163]

Lung:
NSCLC
NCI-H460 (H460) and Calu6 Downregulation of survivin expression in a concentration- and time-
dependent manner;
combination with γ-radiation and platinum compounds: synergistic induction of apoptosis; YM155 delayed the repair of double-strand breaks induced by γ-radiation, cisplatin and carboplatin
[171]

HCC827 (EGFR mutation positive), PC9, H1650, erlotinib-resistant PC9 derivatives
10 nM YM155 induce apoptosis and phosphorylation of AKT and ERK in PC9 cells
combination with erlotinib:
abrogation of erlotinib resistance due to suppression of survivin protein level
[176]

Including NHL, HRPC, ovarian cancer, sarcoma, NSCLC, breast cancer, leukemia and melanoma
Panel of 119 cancer cell lines Growth inhibition and apoptosis [127]

Mesothelioma Prostate cancer Glioblastoma Lung cancer Colorectal cancer HNSCC
H28 PC3
D37, U251 H661, H157 DLD-1 SCC9
YM155 inhibits survivin and MCL1 expression
combination with ABT-263:
downregulation of MCL1 by YM155 enhances ABT-263-triggered cell death
[200]

Liver: HCC
HepG2, Hep3B, Huh7 Combined YM-155 and TRAIL treatment results in decreased cell viability and
an increase of cells in subG1 (apoptotic cells)
[159]

LH86, Huh7, HB01, normal human hepatocytes
In combination with YM-155, very low dose of ABT-263 induces significant apoptosis in HCC cells only in 6 h but shows no apoptotic toxicity to normal human hepatocytes
[160]

data indicate that the depletion of survivin provokes a p53-dependent apoptosis pathway in ALL cells.
The above summarized study discovered that pro-B cell ALL samples positive for the oncogenic E2A–HLF fusion protein (trans-activation do- main of E2A fused to the basic region and leucine zipper domain of HLF; translocation t(17;19)(q22;p13)) had the highest IC50 values for YM155 [100]. Another work found that E2A–HLF induces survivin at the tran- scriptional level [102]. Accordingly, survivin could be inhibited through
expression of survivin-T34A and by a dominant-negative E2A–HLF. In- duction of a caspase-independent and apoptosis-inducing factor (AIF)- dependent cell death upon inhibition of survivin was also found in this study [102].
YM155 is also active against B cells transformed through Epstein– Barr virus (EBV). These malignant cells are characterized by an upregu- lation of the mitotic progression factors CDK1 and cyclin B as well as an increased expression of survivin. Both, the CDK inhibitor flavopiridol

Table 2
Evidence for the efficiency of YM155 in mouse models. See text for abbreviations.
Tumor type Cell line(s) YM155 dose and combination treatment Refs.

HRPC PC3
Subcutaneous xenograft

PC3
orthotopic xenograft
NHL BALB/c nude mice bearing s.c. aggressive NHL xenografts (tumors reached N 300 mm3) WSU-DLCL-2
3-day continuous infusions (weekly for 2 weeks):
3 and 10 mg/kg YM155 completely inhibited the tumor growth and induced massive tumor regression;
continuous YM155 infusions: no sign of tumor regrowth or systemic toxicity; 3-day continuous infusions: 10 mg/kg decrease intratumoral survivin levels on days 3 and 7;
daily intravenous bolus injections of YM155: at ≥ 6 mg/kg mice did not
survive, 2 mg/kg showed a 64% tumor growth inhibition of only
3-day continuous infusion (weekly for 2 weeks): 1 and 5 mg/kg showed 47% and 80% inhibition of tumor growth
7-day continuous infusion, 1 and 3 mg/kg/d resulted in regression in large, established lymphomas (WSU-DLCL-2 and Ramos xenograft models),
0.3 mg/kg/d induced significant tumor growth inhibition in WSU-DLCL-2 models, no evidence of toxicity was observed;
[81]

[116]

DLBCL
Burkitt’s lymphoma
Ramos
RL (tumors reached 500–2000 mm3)

Ramos
disseminated Ramos xenografts
7-day infusion once every 3 weeks for 4 cycles at 1 mg/kg/d RL tumors underwent regression in response to each cycle followed by regrowth, after the 4th cycle of YM155, tumor regrowth was observed in 2 of 8 animals, with 2 CRs, 3 mg/kg/d also resulted in RL tumor regression, response was durable with no regrowth observed, CRs were achieved in 8 of 12 animals, with partial responses in the remaining 4 animals;
RL xenografts treated with YM155 at 3 mg/kg (as a 7-day continuous subcutaneous infusion), reduced RL tumor volume, induced by YM155 is accompanied by down-regulation of intratumoral survivin, cell growth inhibition and induction of apoptosis;
SCID/Ramos lymphoma model (lymphoma affecting the spinal cord and indicative
of the terminal phase of the disease), on day 7 after intravenous cell injection YM155 (3 mg/kg 7-day continuous infusions) was administered once every 3 weeks for 4 courses;
YM155 extended the median survival

TNBC
(human mammary gland adenocarcinoma)
MRK-nu-1 subcutaneously xenografted mice 7-day continuous infusion once every 3 weeks at 5 mg/kg/d, completely inhibited
tumor growth and induced marked regression of established tumors, no signs of tumor regrowth, 2 out of 5 mice experienced complete tumor
regression, and no evidence for systemic toxicity
[126]

NSCLC
melanoma breast cancer bladder cancer
MDA-MB-231-luc mouse metastasis model from orthotopically implanted mammary gland tumors
Xenografts:
Calu 6, NCI-H358 A375
MDA-MB-231 UM-UC-3
7-day infusion at 2 mg/kg/d (day 0–7),
YM155 reduced the frequency of metastasis and prolonged survival

3- or 7-day continuous infusions of
1–10 mg/kg YM155, effective tumor growth inhibition in a wide variety of human cancer xenograft models without systemic toxicity

[127]

HNSCC SCID mouse xenograft model UM-SCC-74A YM155 at 10 mg/kg showed 65% tumor growth inhibition, whereas YM155 at 3 and
1 mg/kg showed 31% and 10%, at day 36;
YM155 treatment at 1 mg/kg did not significantly decrease survivin levels, 3 and 10 mg/kg doses significantly decreased survivin expression
CAL27, CAL27-CisR YM155 and cisplatin treatment alone showed 40% and 24% inhibition of tumor angiogenesis, combination treatment showed 86%;
YM155 (3 mg/kg) in combination with cisplatin was most effective in inhibiting tumor growth of CAL27-CisR (66% inhibition at day 36);
YM155 and cisplatin treatment alone showed 38% and 29% inhibition of tumor angiogenesis in CAL27-CisR; combination treatment showed 83%
[145]

MCC MKL-1 (subcutaneous) xenograft mouse model (NSG), MS-1 (MCV-positive) and UISO (MCV-negative) tumor cell xenografts
YM155 (2 mg/kg, subcutaneous, five times weekly);
delayed MKL-1 xenograft growth and significantly prolonged survival, but all tumors resumed growth once YM155 was stopped;
YM155 rather cytostatic for MKL-1 xenografts
[134]

PDAC MiaPaCa2 xenografts YM155 increases sensitivity to gemcitabine [157]

YM155 (50 mg/kg) 3 day continuous infusion per week for 2 weeks; tumor growth was inhibited by 77.1% on day 31 after treatment
Wilms tumor SK-NEP-1 xenografts YM155 5–10 mg/kg;
YM155 treatment significantly decreased tumor weight
[202]

[163]

B-NHL;
DLBCL/mantle cell lymphoma/ follicular lymphoma
DB, WSU-DLCL-2, Mino
subcutaneous human cancer xenografts
0.5–2 g/kg; tumors were allowed to establish or disseminate before treatment; significantly prolonged survival of the mice;
combination with rituximab:
resulted in significant tumor regression (N100% inhibition)
[117]

WSU-FSCCL and Jeko aggressive xenografts YM155 (2 mg/kg/d) alone extended the median survival;
combination with rituximab:
significantly prolonged survival compared with the respective monotherapies

ATL, cells were established from a patient with acute ATL
MET-1;
NOD/SCID mice
2 mg/kg per day as a 7 day continuous infusion through a micro-osmotic pump; experiments were performed when serum sIL-2Ra levels were N 1000 pg/mL YM155 reduce serum levels of sIL-2Ra, prolonged the survival of leukemia-bearing mice,
median survival of 86 ;
combination with alemtuzumab:
sIL-2Rα levels were Undetectable 8 weeks, as well as at 6 months posttherapy, median survival N6 months
[109]

MPNST [151]

Table 2 (continued)
Tumor type Cell line(s) YM155 dose and combination treatment Refs.

SCID mice, STS26T and MPNST724 subcutaneous xenografts and experimental lung metastasis model injection of STS26T cells into tail vein
Continuous YM155 (6 mg/kg/d) via micro-osmotic pump for a total of six treatment days;
no complete remissions

Melanoma A375 and SK-MEL-5 xenograft model 0.3–10 mg/kg YM155, 3-day continuous infusion every week for 2 weeks
(SK-MEL-5), tumor regression but regrowth during post-observation period;
combination with docetaxel:
YM155 2 mg/kg/d with 7 days infusion, 20 mg/kg bolus day 0 (SK-MEL-5), or day 0, 4 and 8 (A375),
significantly inhibited tumor growth compared with each single-compound group NSCLC Calu 6 subcutaneous xenograft model 0.3–10 mg/kg YM155, 7-day continuous infusion, completely inhibited tumor growth
and induced tumor regression, but recurrence after treatment, YM155 suppresses intra-tumoral survivin expression;
combination with docetaxel (intravenous bolus at 20 mg/kg):
significantly inhibited tumor growth compared with either compound given alone, resulted in a complete regression,
YM155 enhances docetaxel-induced apoptosis
NSCLC H460 or Calu6 cells in nude mice YM155 (5 mg/kg over 7 consecutive days) inhibited Calu6 tumor growth
combination:
YM155 (5 mg/kg) continuous infusion over 7 d: and/or mice were subjected to local irradiation with a single dose of 10 Gy on day 3 of YM155 treatment or: combined treatment with radiation and YM155 inhibited H460 or Calu6 tumor growth to a markedly greater extent than did either modality alone; and/or γ-irradiation with a daily dose of 2 Gy on days 3 to 7 of YM155 treatment: combined treatment with radiation and YM155 inhibited H460 tumor growth to a greater extent than did either modality alone
combined treatment with CDDP or CBDCA (CDDP 3 mg/kg or CBDCA 60 mg/kg intra- venously on each of days 0–3 and days 7–11) and YM155 inhibited Calu6 tumor growth to a markedly greater extent than did treatment with either drug alone
NSCLC Calu 6 subcutaneous xenograft model Combination:
continuous infusion of 2 mg/kg YM155 for one week and three bolus doses of
20 mg/kg docetaxel. Tumor regression In 15 out of 16 mice only when YM155 was co-administered with docetaxel and when YM155 was given before docetaxel
NSCLC H1650 subcutaneous xenograft model 5 mg/kg YM155 over 7 consecutive days via an implanted micro-osmotic pump,
YM155 inhibited tumor growth, but recurrence after treatment
[131]

[127]

[171]

[172]

[176]

and drugs reducing the expression of survivin, YM155 and tetra-O- methyl nordihydroguaiaretic acid (terameprocol; Fig. 2), were effective against EBV-transformed B cells [103]. Like YM155, terameprocol can repress the expression of survivin. Terameprocol is a semi-synthetic tetra-methylated derivative of nordihydroguaiaretic acid that blocks the binding of SP1 to the survivin and CDK1 promoters [104–106].
Despite these positive effects of YM155 against leukemic cells, ani- mal experiments indicate that it may be necessary to monitor normal hematopoiesis. In adult mice the inducible genetic depletion of survivin caused a loss of hematopoietic progenitors and rapid death [107].

4.2.1.2. YM155 as combinatorial treatment. Survivin is overexpressed in adult T cell leukemia (ATL) being characterized by a clonal expansion of T cells positive for CD4 and CD25 and immunodeficiency. This diffi- cult to treat blood cancer is caused by infection with the human retrovi- rus T cell lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1) [108]. Survivin is also overexpressed in HTLV-1 infected cell lines [109], and RNAi against survivin attenuates the growth of an ATL cell line [110].
The combination of YM155 and the anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab was tested in a mouse model of a human ATL (MET-1) [109]. CD52 is expressed on ATL cells [111]. While alemtuzumab can in- crease β-catenin and TCF4 promoting the expression of survivin and chemoresistance in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) of ATL patients, YM155 antagonizes survivin in ATL cell lines and causes apoptosis. Although SPC3042 as well as terameprocol (Fig. 2) failed to induce apoptosis and a loss of survivin, YM155 was effective in the MET-1 ATL mouse model and increased the survival of the mice. The tumor surrogate marker serum soluble IL-2Rα (sIL-2Rα) levels became lowered and the survival of tumor-bearing mice was significantly prolonged in comparison with the monotherapies. Even more than six months after combination treatment the mice remained tumor-free.

These findings encouraged a clinical trial of the combination of YM155 with alemtuzumab in ATL [109].
The HTLV-1 protein Tax activates the survivin promoter via activa- tion of NF-κB [112]. A recent work reveals an unexpected effect when CD34-positive human hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs) are infect- ed with HTLV-1. Contrary to the hyperproliferation of CD4(+) T lym- phocytes, HTLV-1 infected HPCs arrest in the G0/G1 phase of the cell cycle and the expression of survivin becomes attenuated dependent on the CDK inhibitor p21 (CIP1/WAF1) [113]. Further experimental data are necessary to understand such differences and how HTLV-1 reg- ulates survivin and tumorigenesis. It seems possible that the complex formation between p53 and NF-κB induced through Tax affects the NF-κB-dependent regulation of survivin [114]. Such a molecular path- way would be reminiscent of the control of survivin through p53 and NF-κB in cells infected with EBV encoding the oncoprotein LMP1 [115].

⦁ Lymphoma
So far all reported studies assessing the efficacy of YM155 against lymphomas were done in combination with other agents. A recent study by Astellas Pharma suggests that YM155 may represent an effec- tive treatment for aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). They compared YM155 and rituximab against aggressive non-Hodgkin lym- phomas. Rituximab is a monoclonal antibody directed against the sur- face protein molecule cluster of differentiation-20 (CD20), which is mainly expressed on B lymphocytes. The IC50 for growth inhibition of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) cell lines by YM155 ranged be- tween 0.2–3.9 nM YM155. In mice, already established subcutaneous WSU-DLCL-2 diffuse large cell lymphomas and Ramos Burkitt lympho- mas could be eliminated with continuous infusion of four cycles of YM155. Those tumors showed reduced survivin mRNA and protein levels which in turn resulted in a decreased mitotic index and less pro- liferation. YM155 increased survival significantly versus rituximab in a

disseminated Ramos model [116]. Interestingly, in this trial even high doses of YM155 did not affect hematopoiesis.
The potency of YM155 in combination with rituximab was also ad- dressed with human B cell NHL xenograft models. Two different murine models were used. DB, WSU-DLCL-2, and Mino cells were injected into the animals’ flanks, and WSU-FSCCL and Jeko cells were injected intra- venously to mimic the disseminated state of NHL. Indeed, the continu- ous infusion of YM155 via a micro-osmotic pump plus rituximab given on two days reduced cancer cell proliferation and glucose metabolism. Moreover, such combinatorial treatment prolonged the survival of the mice [117]. Since the YM155/rituximab combination was effective against disseminated WSU-FSCCL and Jeko cells in NOD/SCID mice, the rituximab effect is likely linked to the inhibition of yet unidentified cel- lular survival pathways and not to CD20 antibody/cell or to complement system-mediated toxicity.
DLBCL patients with an activated B cell (ABC) gene expression pro- file represent a subgroup with high STAT3 activity [118]. Since STAT3 also induces the survivin gene [41,42], survivin may be the biological target downstream of STAT3 inhibition (Fig. 1). The analysis of the inter- play between YM155 and the STAT3 inhibitors AG490 and STA-21 showed that such drug combinations synergistically induce apoptosis of DLBCL cells [119]. While the tyrphostin AG490 blocks Janus kinase- 2 acting upstream of the phosphorylation-dependent STAT3 signaling cascade [120], STA-21 interacts with the Src-homolgy domain-2 of STAT3 and thereby blocks its interaction with the phosphorylated tyro- sine residue of another STAT3 molecule. The formation of such dimers is important as they mediate the strong induction of STAT3 target genes [121]. Perhaps YM155 will also combine favorably with HDACi, as acet- ylation dampens STAT3 phosphorylation in DLBCLs [118]. This finding is reminiscent of the STAT1 phosphorylation–acetylation switch [58,122].

⦁ Breast cancer

Metastatic triple negative breast cancers (TNBCs) lack expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors and of the HER2/neu/ERBB2 growth factor receptor [123,124]. Due to these molecular features, this type of breast cancer does not offer therapeutically amenable targets. Accordingly, it remains a major therapeutic challenge with an often poor overall patient prognosis [123,124]. Survivin promotes breast can- cer cell growth, apoptosis resistance, metastases and patient mortality [125].
Astellas Pharma tested YM155 against these cancers. In a murine pre- clinical model of spontaneous metastatic human TNBCs, continuous in- fusion of YM155 decreased expression of survivin and its splice variants survivin-2B, -ΔEx3 and -3B in tumors. This tied in with increased apopto- sis and a reduced mitotic index of subcutaneously established tumors. Tumor regression and reduced metastases significantly prolonged the survival of animals. As the MDA-MB-231-Luc-D3H2-LN orthotopic model used in this work stems from an aggressive estrogen receptor negative breast cancer, the collected data propose that YM155 may rep- resent a novel therapeutic option for patients with metastatic TNBCs [126].
The potency of YM155 against MDA-MB-231 xenografts was also demonstrated in another study [127]. Furthermore, mutations in the tumor suppressor breast cancer associated gene-1 (BRCA1) predispose women to breast and ovarian cancers [128], and the analysis of a BRCA1-deficient mouse model illustrated that survivin is associated with mammary cancers [31]. These data suggest that YM155 and other agents directed against survivin might be an option for breast can- cer patients.

⦁ Skin cancers

⦁ Melanoma
Normal keratinocyte stem cells, melanocytes, and fibroblasts belong to the few tissues expressing survivin in adult life [129]. While survivin
protects these cells from apoptosis, melanoma and skin squamous cell carcinoma are frequently characterized by an overexpression of survivin associated with tumor grading and a notorious resistance to apoptosis [129,130].
To investigate YM155′s potency in melanoma treatment, malignant p53 wild-type human melanoma cells (A375 and SK-MEL-5) were chal- lenged in vitro and in vivo with YM155 and the anti-mitotic drug doce- taxel. Both cell lines were equally sensitive to YM155 applied in the nanomolar range and YM155 was well tolerated and effective against established melanoma xenografts. Docetaxel arrested cells in the G2/M phase of the cell cycle and this led to the accumulation of survivin [131]. This observation is consistent with the cell cycle-dependent control of survivin allowing high survivin levels at G2/M [4]. While this increase in survivin did not prevent melanoma cell death, cotreatment with YM155 repressed survivin mRNA and protein expression below its levels in resting and docetaxel-treated cells. Moreover, such treatment pronouncedly and synergistically killed A375 und SK-Mel-5 melanoma cells [131].
Another study also found that melanoma cells (KUL58-MEL, RPMI- 7951, SK-MEL-5, A375, SK-MEL-28, SK-MEL-2, A375-SM, Hs 294 T,
G361, UZG4-MEL, Malme-3 M, BB74-MEL) are sensitive to YM155 [127]. These data encourage the use of YM155 alone and in combinato- rial treatment schedules against melanoma. Since HDACi antagonize the NF-κB-induced expression of survivin in melanoma [34,49], YM155 may combine favorably with such epigenetic modulators as well.

⦁ Merkel cell carcinoma
In the early 19th century Friedrich Sigmund Merkel discovered cells that are associated with nerve terminals and form mechanoreceptors. “Merkel-cell-like” cells belong to the neuroendocrine system, do not function as mechanoreceptors, and likely are the origin of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) as described by Cyril Toker in 1972 [132]. MCC is an aggressive skin cancer characterized by the diagnostic marker cytokeratin-20. The Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCV) causes ~ 80% of primary and metastatic MCCs [133]. Metastatic MCC represents a seri- ous unresolved clinical problem and there is a disease-specific mortality of approximately 40% [132,133]. A recent study revealed a significant upregulation of survivin in MCV-positive compared to virus-negative MCCs. The MCV large T antigen encoded in the MCV dsDNA genome in- duces the expression of survivin in primary cells. Cell cycle regulatory proteins including E2F1 and cyclin E are required for this effect [134], which is in accordance with cell cycle progression promoting survivin expression [4]. Nonetheless, it should not be concluded that the T anti- gen only mediates its transforming effects through survivin. This pro- tein rather mediates various oncogenic processes independent of survivin [135].
Studies with YM155 suggest that survivin is important for the sur- vival of MCV-positive MCC cells [134]. YM155 was effective against MCV-positive MCC xenograft tumors in mice. While this success was reached without gross cytotoxicity, YM155′s effect was cytostatic and could not stop tumor recurrence when treatment with YM155 was stopped [134]. Both, preventing infection with MCV and continuously targeting survivin expression might be a valid treatment options for MCC.
The study by Arora and colleagues [134] not only revealed that YM155 might be a novel treatment option for Merkel cell carcinomas. It further disclosed that YM155 may induce biological effects beyond the inhibition of survivin expression (see also Section 6).

⦁ Neuro- and glioblastoma

The expression of survivin correlates with a poor prognosis for NB patients, and the elimination of survivin with anti-sense molecules trig- gers NB cell death through mitotic catastrophe [136]. Such findings en- courage the testing of YM155 against NBs. Interestingly, nine out of 23 cell lines were relatively resistant to YM155 (IC50 N 200 nM in a cell

survival assay), but sensitive to shRNAs targeting survivin [93]. The re- maining cells, including four early passage tumor-initiating cells, were killed by YM155 and showed the cleavage of the DNA repair enzyme PARP, a sign of apoptosis. Furthermore, sensitive NB cells became more resistant to YM155 when survivin was overexpressed indicating that survivin is a major target of this agent. Transcriptome analyses with the five most and five least YM155-sensitive NB cell lines revealed that the expression of MDR1 (encoded by MDR1 aka ABCB1) predicts the resistance of NB cells to YM155. Furthermore, a non-cytotoxic inhibition of MDR1 with the fungal peptide cyclosporine or via genetic elimination with siRNAs increased tumor cell sensitivity to YM155. Hence, YM155 appears as a promising agent for the treatment of NB when MDR1 is compromised [93].
Glial cells are the most abundant cell type in the human brain. Glio- blastomas (GBMs) are aggressive, incurable, and mostly fatal cancers [137]. The expression of nuclear survivin indicates a particularly poor prognosis [138]. Treatment of human U87 glioblastoma cells (p53 wild-type, isolated from a 44 year old patient) with YM155 increased their sensitivity to irradiation. This effect was linked to an increase in giant multinucleated cells and centrosomal overduplication [139]. YM155 was also tested in other human glioblastoma cell lines, the radiation-resistant M059K and their radiation-sensitive M059J counter- part [138]. These cell lines were derived from the same tumor of a 33 year old patient and harbor mutant p53 [140]. The sensitivity of these cells toward irradiation is due to the wild-type or mutant expression of the catalytic subunit of the nuclear serine/threonine protein kinase DNA-PK [141]. DNA-PK, together with KU70/80, Artemis, XRCC4, and DNA ligase IV, is an essential part of the non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) pathway combating DNA double strand breaks [142,143]. Whereas DNA damaging drugs like the anthracycline doxorubicin are more effective against M059J cells lacking wild-type DNA-PK [144], YM155 caused equal levels of apoptotic cell death in M059K and M059J cells. This was associated with a drug-induced reduction of survivin but not with the basal expression levels of survivin [138].

⦁ Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

⦁ YM155 as single treatment
Activities of YM155 were also assessed in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), a tumor type frequently overexpressing survivin, in vivo and in permanently cultured HNSCC cell lines [145]. In the human nasopharyngeal carcinoma cell line TW01 the cytokine TGF-β induced the overexpression of survivin and this process is sensi- tive to YM155 [146]. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma is often associated with the infection with EBV. EBV encodes an oncoprotein termed latent membrane protein 1 (LMP1) and LMP1 positively regulates the tran- scription and expression of survivin via p53. Moreover, p53 not only promotes the expression of survivin in such cells, but also fails to cause apoptosis and cell cycle arrest [147]. Although this unexpected finding contrasts the repression of survivin by p53 [26–30,100], it is in line with the ambivalent role of p53 on the survivin promoter in resting or stressed cells [25].
In extranodal nasal-type natural killer/T cell lymphoma LMP1 en- hances the expression of survivin through p53, NF-κB, and MYC. Such cells are sensitive to terameprocol which indicates that survivin is a valid target for the treatment of such cancers [115].

⦁ YM155 as combinatorial treatment
HNSCCs are commonly treated with cisplatin, but resistance against this drug occurs recurrently and there is often no clear benefit for the patients [148]. Of note, reducing survivin restores cellular sensitivity against cisplatin and rapidly counteracts cytoplasmic survivin in HNSCCs. Also in SCID mice bearing HNSCC xenografts, YM155 favorably combined with cisplatin at no cost of toxicity to the mice. Both, anti- tumor and anti-angiogenic effects of cisplatin became augmented sug- gesting anti-tumor effects as well as effects of the YM155/cisplatin
combination on the tumor environment. Hence, such drug regimen may be a useful new therapeutic strategy [145].

⦁ Sarcomas

YM155 is also effective against human malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNSTs). This cancer arises from cells forming the con- nective tissue surrounding nerves and accounts for up to 10% of all soft tissue sarcomas. MPNSTs, malignant schwannoma, neurofibrosarcoma, or neurosarcoma, are associated with the autosomal-dominant disorder neurofibromatosis type 1 or develop sporadically [149]. As for most can- cers, novel treatment options are also required for MPNST [150]. Cyto- plasmic and nuclear survivin is overexpressed in primary human MPNST specimen and in MPNST cell lines. Inhibiting survivin caused cell cycle arrest of MPNST cells in the G2 phase and apoptosis [151]. Fur- thermore, YM155 was effective against locally and metastasis-like spreading of human MPNST cells in xenografted immunodeficient mice. However, no complete regressions were observed [151]. As with many other drugs targeting tumor cells, combinatorial regimens appear necessary to combat MPNSTs.
While survivin expression does not appear to correlate with the prognosis of MPNST patients [151], survivin correlates with a poor prog- nosis for patients suffering from Ewing sarcoma (ES) [152]. These can- cers are the second most common pediatric primary bone sarcoma and one of the most fatal malignancies in children and young adults. The remission rate is approximately 50% for patients with localized ES, but curative options for patients with metastatic ES are not available [153,154]. Testing YM155 against various ES cell lines revealed that YM155 reduced ES cell viability by 50% [152]. One ES cell line was also tested with RNAi against survivin. Depletion of survivin reduced cell proliferation and induced caspase activation. Of 24 patients with ES, 10 had low and 14 had high expression of survivin in their tumors. Re- markably, of these 10 patients only one died of ES and 9 of the 14 pa- tients with high survivin expression died of disease progression [152]. Blocking survivin with YM155, anti-sense nucleotides, or immunother- apy therefore appears as a plausible strategy to treat ES.
Further approaches may combine YM155 with other drugs to elimi- nate survivin or other transforming pathways in ES cells. Since ES are childhood cancers usually positive for wild-type p53, activation of p53-dependent cell death programs [155], which can be linked to the suppression of survivin [26–30] may represent a valid combination for the treatment of ES.

⦁ Pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer is a dismal disease with poor prognosis [156]. So far all reported studies assessing the efficacy of YM155 against pancre- atic cancer cells were done in combination with other agents. YM155 fa- vorably combined with gemcitabine against human pancreatic cancer cells [157]. Gemcitabine is a nucleoside analog of deoxycytidine that blocks DNA replication and the enzyme ribonucleotide reductase (RNR). Gemcitabine is currently the standard chemotherapy for such cancers [156]. Like another agent evoking cell cycle arrest by RNR inhi- bition, hydroxyurea [28], gemcitabine induces survivin accumulation in cancer cells [157]. It is plausible that both agents promote survivin ex- pression through a p53/NF-κB crosstalk and that the mutant p53 pro- tein expressed in MiaPaCa2 cells activates the survivin gene [25]. Moreover, a reduction of survivin might enhance the efficacy of gemcitabine. Indeed, YM155 as well as the knockdown of endogenous survivin by RNA interference increased the growth inhibitory effects of gemcitabine against MiaPaCa2 cells in vitro and as xenograft tumors.

⦁ Hepatocellular carcinoma

Approximately 50% of human hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) stain positive for survivin [158]. Furthermore, survivin-positive HCCs

show a significantly higher recurrence rate after hepatectomy and are linked to poor prognosis [158]. Consistent with the idea of survivin as a therapeutic target in HCC, YM155 was shown to sensitize HCC cells to the pro-apoptotic effects of TRAIL [159] and of the BCL2 family inhib- itor ABT-263 [160].
Recent work also demonstrates the critical role of survivin in the ini- tiation stage of HCC in a diethylnitrosamine (DEN)-induced mouse model, which mimics the human disease [161]. In an effort to uncover the molecular determinates of the c-JUN-dependent survival pathway, a complex and interesting genetic network was uncovered. c-JUN re- presses the promoter of a further AP1 family member, c-FOS. Reduced expression of c-FOS limits the expression of the class III deacetylase SIRT6, which is able to shut-off the transcription of the survivin gene by deacetylation of lysine 9 of histone H3 and by controlling binding of NF-κB to the survivin gene promoter [161]. Importantly, this pathway seems to be operative in human dysplastic liver nodules. Moreover, temporary interference with survivin function during the initiation stage significantly reduces tumorigenesis in the DEN-induced mouse model [161].
These data suggest that survivin plays an important role during the
carcinogenesis and maintenance of HCC, and modulating this complex genetic network might offer a preventive strategy.

⦁ Wilms tumor

Wilms tumor is a childhood cancer of the kidney. While the Wilms tumor 1 protein (WT1) is a transcription factor that is lost or mutated in such tumors, WT1 serves as a marker for leukemia and indicates min- imal residual disease [162].
Human SK-NEP-1 kidney cells are derived from Wilms tumor [163]. In response to YM155 these cells underwent growth arrest and apopto- sis, and YM155 reduced SK-NEP-1 xenograft growth. Microarray analy- ses conducted with these cells revealed that YM155 affects mRNA expression beyond the survivin promoter [163] (see also Section 6).

⦁ Bladder cancer

The absence of survivin expression in the normal urothelium and its expression in bladder cancer tissue make survivin a marker for this tumor and position survivin as a potential target for cancer-specific in- tervention [164]. In the UM-UC-3 bladder cancer subcutaneous xeno- graft model, YM155 evoked tumor regression associated with the repression of survivin and the execution of apoptosis [127]. These re- sults propose further testing of YM155 and other anti-survivin agents against bladder cancer.

⦁ Non-small cell lung cancer

NSCLCs fall into the categories squamous cell carcinoma, large cell carcinoma, and adenocarcinoma. NSCLCs represent more than 80% of all lung cancers. This tumor type is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide and there are over one million newly diagnosed cases per year. Squamous cell carcinomas are usually found in smokers [165–169]. Hopefully, further research will reveal which combinations might be useful against NSCLC [165–167]. So far, all reported studies assessing the efficacy of YM155 against NSCLC were done in combina- tion with other agents.
Data collected with in vitro cultured human NSCLC cell lines (H460 [p53 wild-type] and CaLu6 [p53 null]) and murine xenografts suggest that YM155 could be combined with γ-radiation [170]. Furthermore, YM155 and γ-radiation synergistically induced apoptosis and favorably combined against NSCLC xenografts growing in immunocompromised nude mice. It became clear that YM155 delays the repair of radiation- induced double strand DNA (dsDNA) breaks (measureable through the presence of the phosphorylated form of histone H2A.X (γH2AX)). Inclusion of YM155 in radiation protocols may hence be a valid strategy
[170]. YM155 also combines well with platinum-based drugs [171] which are commonly used as a first-line strategy to treat NSCLCs [165–167]. The efficacy of YM155 against CaLu6 xenografts was also found in another study [127].
Additional studies assessed the YM155-induced cell death of human NSCLC lines (H460, CaLu6, H358 [p53 null], PC14 [p53Arg248Gln muta- tion]) in vitro and as tumor xenografts in vivo. These researchers found that YM155 delays the repair of DNA strand breaks induced by the chemotherapeutics cisplatin and carboplatin. Consequently, YM155 promotes caspase-dependent apoptosis of NSCLC cells [171].
In combination with docetaxel YM155 was well tolerated and active against CaLu6 xenografts. Remarkably, the schedule of administration of these drugs was relevant for anti-cancer effects [172]. This mechanism was discovered when xenografted mice were treated with YM155 and docetaxel. In 15 out of 16 mice an impressive, nearly complete tumor re- gression could be achieved when YM155 was co-administered with do- cetaxel and when YM155 was given before docetaxel. This success was associated with tumor growth inhibition and apoptosis. Curiously, tumor inhibition was seen in only three out of eight animals that were first exposed to docetaxel and then to YM155. These differences were not related to side effects, i.e. how the animals coped with the treatment schemes [172].
Non-smokers suffering from lung adenocarcinomas frequently ex- press mutants of the tyrosine kinase epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) [173]. The small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKi) gefi- tinib and erlotinib are the first line therapy for NSCLC patients carrying tumors with mutations in the EGFR [174]. Patients lacking such muta- tions do not benefit from these TKi and there are other mechanisms conferring NSCLC resistance to these drugs [175]. Interestingly, YM155 favorably combines with erlotinib, an agent inhibiting EGFR signaling [176]. This study further shows that a lack of the protein phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) causes erlotinib resistance in lung cancer cells expressing hyperactive EGFR mutant molecules. Two independent cellular systems were used to collect these data. PTEN-positive (HCC827; PC9) and PTEN-negative cells as well as PC9 with acquired resistance to erlotinib (PC9/GEF cells). At the molecular level, erlotinib resistance correlates with a persistent expression of survivin and phosphorylation of the protein kinase B (PKB/AKT) [176]. These data agree with the regulation of survivin expression through the phosphoinoside 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT signaling node [177]. Drugs targeting the EGFR block the PI3K–AKT signaling node and thereby re- duce survivin and the survival of NSCLC cells [177]. Remarkably, erloti- nib resistance does not correlate with a lack of drug efficacy at the level of the EGFR being the primary target of erlotinib. Elimination of survivin, either by RNAi or with YM155, antagonizes erlotinib resistance of PC9/ GEF cells in vitro as well as the erlotinib resistance of H1650 cells in vitro and in xenografted nude mice [176]. Hence, survivin appears as the biologically relevant target to break the erlotinib resistance of NSCLCs.
It may be possible that YM155 also combines favorably with other
drugs used to treat lung cancer. An example is crizotinib which is an orally available inhibitor of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) and of the hepatocyte growth factor receptor (HGFR/c-MET) TKs. In around 4% of lung adenocarcinomas the echinoderm microtubule-associated pro- tein-like 4 (EML4; located on chromosome 2 p21) gene is fused to the ALK4 gene (located on chromosome 2p23) giving rise to the EML4– ALK fusion protein. Crizotinib shows promising effects in these often younger light or never-smokers and combining this compound with other agents may prevent chemoresistance [175,178].
Another survivin antagonist, terameprocol is also effective against HCC2429 and H460 lung cancer cell lines [106]. H460 cells are large cell lung cancer cells that express wild-type p53 and depend on survivin [179]. HCC2429 cells are derived from an aggressive, meta- static lung cancer from a never-smoker [180]. These cells express the fu- sion protein double bromodomain protein/nuclear protein in testis, BRD4–NUT (translocation t(15;19)(q13;p13)). BRD4–NUT was found

to sequester the HAT p300 and to thereby inactivate p53 [181]. While terameprocol reduced survivin expression in both cell lines, there was no correlation between apoptosis and the reduction of survivin. Any- how, the increased sensitivity of some terameprocol-treated lung can- cer cells might be a treatment option to potentiate YM155 efficacy and warrants further investigation [106].
The fact that YM155 showed activities against p53 wild-type, null, and mutant tumor cells is promising as p53 signaling is very frequently disturbed in lung cancers [182,183]. YM155 was also found to act in a p53-independent fashion in several human tumor-derived cell lines in vitro and as murine xenografts. In a panel of 119 cancer cell lines, cells from NHL, HRPC, ovarian cancer, sarcoma, NSCLC, breast cancer, leukemia, and melanoma were among the most sensitive specimen [127]. The activity of YM155 against human cancer-derived cells was confirmed in murine xenografts studies. YM155 caused the depletion of survivin and caused tumor cell apoptosis in the absence of systemic toxicity. On average, cells with mutant or no p53 were about 1.4-fold more sensitive to YM155 than cells with wild-type p53 [127]. It is plau- sible that the increased expression of survivin in p53 mutant cells [25] renders them oncogene-addicted to survivin and thereby more sensi- tive to the depletion of survivin.

⦁ YM155 as a modulator of stem cell fate

A further application of YM155 may repose on its ability to benefi- cially modify human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs). Such embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells may bring therapeutic op- portunities of unappreciable value. However, they can equally bear the risk of undifferentiated stem cells contributing to teratoma formation, and this process is linked to the expression of survivin [184].
A recent study found that undifferentiated human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) are characterized by high expression levels of survivin and BCL10 [185]. Moreover, a single pulse of YM155 or quercetin, both of which can target the expression of survivin, may render the therapeutic use of hESCs more safely. Whereas undifferentiated hESCs were eliminated by such treatment, cells differentiated from hESCs were not affected and could differentiate properly [185]. While querce- tin may block survivin by virtue of its ability to inhibit the β-catenin/ TCF-dependent activation of the survivin promoter in colon cancer cells [186], others found that quercetin increases survivin protein levels in lung cancer cells [187]. The interesting study provided by Lee and col- leagues reveals that 2.5 nM YM155 can eliminate undifferentiated hESCs, which are sensitive to the depletion of survivin through RNAi, and 10 nM YM155 can decrease the mRNA levels of survivin [185]. Unfortunately, it was not analyzed whether the treatment with YM155 depleted survivin on the protein level.
It is conceivable that not every cell controls survivin expression at every time by the same mechanisms. Therefore, YM155 may differen- tially affect survivin in various cell populations. This may equally apply to tumor tissues which contain different types of malignant cells [188]. Further studies will reveal whether drugs specifically targeting survivin may eliminate the indefinitely proliferating cancerous stem cells (Table 2).

⦁ Clinical studies

Table 3 summarizes clinical studies conducted with YM155 alone and in combination schedules.

⦁ Blood cancers

YM155 and the survivin anti-sense molecule LY2181308 have en- tered clinical trials as agents targeting survivin [189,190]. While they show acceptable toxicity and certain therapeutic efficacy, combination treatment schedules appear necessary to demonstrate the full thera- peutic potential of survivin inhibitors [7,40,191].
In 2008, a phase I study reported on the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary evidence of antitu- mor activity of YM155 [86]. This study enrolled 41 patients suffering from chemotherapy-refractory cancers or from tumors for which no standard therapy protocols exist. Within the cohort, grade 1–2 toxicities (stomatitis, pyrexia, and nausea) occurred, but grade 3–4 toxicities were seldom. The MTD was 4.8 mg/m2/d YM155, allowing an approxi- mate steady-state plasma concentration of 7.7 ng/mL and a chemical half-life of YM155 lasting 26 h. Minor responses were seen in two of nine prostate cancer cases and in one out of two NSCLC patients. How- ever, of five patients with recurrent and refractory NHLs, three experi- enced partial to complete responses [86]. At the 4.8 mg/m2/d dose level, one of two heavily pretreated patients with DLBCLs had a partial response after two cycles of YM155. The patient experienced a complete response by cycle 6. Subsequent high-dose chemotherapy and periph- eral stem-cell transplantation kept the patient disease-free without fur- ther treatment for more than four years. Another patient with recurrent DLBCL achieved a partial response after 16 cycles and this success lasted eight months. A patient with a follicular large B cell lymphoma resisting various chemotherapeutics and peripheral stem-cell transplantation had a partial response from cycle 8 on and has been on further treat- ment for over two years [86]. Of note, expression of the NF-κB target genes survivin and BCL2 is seen in about 43% and 25% of all B cell malig- nancies, respectively [192].
DLBCL is the most common NHL in the US and no cure options can be offered to the 30% of patients with chemoresistant NHL [193]. The study by Tolcher and colleagues, which was supported by Astellas Pharma, concluded that YM155 alone and in combination with chemotherapy might prove efficacy against various tumors. Moreover, the data above particularly suggests the usage of YM155 in NHL [86]. Unfortunately, the study does not inform on whether the success rates in the NHL pa- tients were linked to the level of survivin reduction upon treatment with YM155.
A multicenter phase II study testing YM155 in 41 refractory DLBCL cases appears less positive [193]. These patients were treated with 5 mg/m2 YM155 per day, as a continuous infusion for one week every 21 days (median of patient age was 66 years and a median of three prior regimen had been conducted). The median number of completed cycles was three and a maximum of 15 cycles could be reached. While one patient had a complete remission, two further patients achieved a median progression-free survival of 58 days. This study still shows that YM155 is a well-tolerated agent, apart from some serious cases of anemia and fatigue (14.6% and 12.2% percent of patients, respectively). Cheson and colleagues also suggested using YM155 in combination with other agents, such as rituximab [193].

⦁ Solid tumors

The safety profile, plasma concentrations achieved, and antitumor activity observed with YM155 merit further studies with this agent, alone and in combination regimens. Patients with advanced refractory solid tumors were treated with escalating doses of YM155 administered by continuous intravenous infusion for one week in 21-day cycles. The patients suffered from NSCLC (21.2%), esophageal cancer (18.2%), colo- rectal cancer (12.1%), and thymic cancer (9.1%). 33 patients with a me- dian age of 59 years received at least one dose of YM155. The MTD was determined to be 8.0 mg/m2/d. Dose-limiting toxicity of increased blood creatinine was observed in two patients treated with 10.6 mg/m2/d [194]. Stable disease was achieved in nine patients.
A multicenter phase II trial assessed YM155 in 37 patients (five never-smokers, 28 male patients) suffering from NSCLCs [195]. This co- hort comprised 17 adenocarcinoma, 15 squamous cell carcinoma, and five large cell carcinoma cases. The patients had treatment failures dur- ing platinum-based chemotherapy and their tumors were of advanced stages IIIb and IV. Treatment with YM155 was well tolerated, with fa- tigue, pyrexia, chills, and nausea being the most common adverse

Table 3
Clinical studies involving YM155; SD, stable disease; PR, partial response; CR, complete response.

Tumor(s) Trial Patients (#) Success YM155 dosing schedule Refs.
phase SD PR CR
Advanced solid malignancies or lymphoma I 41 CR: 1 patient (8 months) 1.8 to 6.0 mg/m2/d, [86]
chemotherapy-refractory cancers or tumors PR: 2 patients (24+, 48+ months) continuous intravenous
lacking standard therapy protocol: prostate, 1 PSA response injection of escalating doses
colorectal, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, head for 7 days every 3 weeks,
and neck, sarcoma, breast, liver, NSCLC, 2 to 98 cycles
melanoma, ovarian, small-cell lung cancer
Advanced refractory solid tumors
I
33:
SD: 9 patients (42–438 days)
1.8 to 10.6 mg/m2/d,
[194]
NSCLC (7), esophageal (6), colorectal (4), continuous intravenous
thymic (3), thyroid (2), MFH (2), pleural injection for 7 days every
mesothelioma (2), others (1 each) 3 weeks,

CRPC (Prostate cancer, resistant to standard
II
35:
YM155 had modest activity in taxane- 1 to 19 cycles
4.8 mg/m2/d, continuous
[198]
hormone therapy (taxane-containing Previous castration therapies, pretreated prostate cancer with 25% of intravenous injection for 7
chemotherapy) and to castration therapy) chemotherapy and partly radiation patients having prolonged stable disease every 3 weeks,
therapy (13 patients with diagnostic end point disease dependent
response to prostate specific antigen

Refractory DLBCL
II test)
41
CR: 1 patient (5+ months)
5 mg/m2/d,
[193]
stages I–IV PR: 2 patients continuous intravenous
SD: 11 patients injection for 7 days every
3 weeks,

Melanoma (unresectable, no prior
II
34
PR: 1 patient (24 weeks) 2 to 12 cycles
4.8 mg/m2/d,
[197]
chemotherapy) continuous intravenous
stages III–IV injection for 7 days every
3 weeks,

NSCLC
II
37:
PR: 2 patients after 6 and 8 cycles 1 to 6 cycles
4.8 mg/m2/d,
[195]
stages IIIb/IV Adenocarcinoma (17), SD: 14 patients after second cycle continuous intravenous
squamous cell carcinoma (15), Dead: 12 patients died during trial due to infusion for 7 days every
large cell carcinoma (5) disease progression or non-drug related, 3 weeks,

CRPC
II
35 20 patients died after the trial
PR: 1 patient up to 6 cycles
4.8 mg/m2/d,
[198]
2 confirmed PSA responses continuous intravenous
injection for 7 days every

NSCLC
I
22 (Refractory)
SD: 10 patients 3 weeks
3.6 to 12 mg/m2,
[196]
escalating doses YM155
combined with carboplatin

II
19 (Untreated stage IV)
PR: 2 patients and paclitaxel
10 mg/m2 intravenous over
SD: 14 patients 72 h every 3 weeks, 6 cycles

events. 31 patients could complete at least one treatment cycle and 12 patients completed six to ten cycles. Of the 37 patients two experienced a partial response (4.4%) and 14 other patients (37.8%) achieved stable disease. There was no obvious correlation between the number of cycles and the success rates. The median progression-free survival was
1.7 months and survival rates were between four to 12.2 months. A one year survival rate of 35.1% was observed. These data show that YM155 exhibits modest single-agent activity against NSCLCs, but with a disease control rate of 43.2% YM155 performed similar as other second-line agents for advanced NSCLC (e.g., erlotinib and gefitinib, do- cetaxel, and the anti-metabolite pemetrexed) [195]. The pharmacody- namics of YM155 was also tested in this study. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) could be collected from eleven patients to assess survivin expressions at multiple data points. An initial repression of survivin mRNA was clearly observed within the first but not after the second treatment cycle. Moreover, the suppression of survivin, which was seen in the majority of patients, did not correlate with re- sponse [195]. Obviously, the number of patients was too low to make a definite conclusion and further assessment of YM155 in larger studies is warranted.
A recent phase I/II study assessed the safety and efficacy of YM155 in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in 41 NSCLC patients [196]. 19 patients with untreated stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were treated for six cycles with the maximum tolerated dose of
intravenously administered YM155 (10 mg/m2) over 72 h every three weeks. YM155 was well tolerated and two partial responses not clearly correlated with pharmacodynamic parameters were observed. Hence, the combination tested did not confer an improvement for the treat- ment of NSCLC.
A multi-center phase II study of YM155 monotherapy was carried out with patients suffering from unresectable stage III or IV melanoma. Chemotherapy-naïve patients were treated with YM155 [197]. While YM155 was overtly well tolerated, out of 29 patients there was only one partial responder experiencing this success for eight cycles (1.3 months median progression-free survival and 9.9 months median survival) [197].
Continuous YM155 doses were given to 35 heavily pretreated pa- tients suffering from advanced prostate cancers. These tumors were in- dependent of androgens and could not be restricted by castration [198]. While animal experiments assessing YM155′s activity against prostate cancers were promising [81,98], YM155 was modestly effective [198]. Elevated levels of the serine protease prostate-specific antigen (PSA) are a marker for tumor burden and their reduction indicates therapeutic success. The high levels of PSA and its precursor stem from the inability of prostate tumors to cleave PSA (into its inactive form, “free PSA”) and pro-PSA. Hence, these tumors have elevated PSA and pro-PSA [199]. Two out of 32 eligible patients had reduced PSA levels and a partial re- sponse was only seen in one patient. Since 25% of the patients had

disease stabilization for 18 weeks and more and because YM155 was tolerated well, combining YM155 and docetaxel may be a promising ap- proach [198].

⦁ Is YM155 a survivin-specific inhibitor?

Efficiently hitting one relevant target can be a valid strategy against cancer at the cost of lower side effects. Although there is evidence supporting that YM155 can antagonize survivin expression, recent data argue that YM155 induces biological effects apart from the inhibi- tion of survivin (Fig. 3 and Table 1).
For example, YM155 reduces transcription of the MCL1 gene and ex- pression of the anti-apoptotic BCL2-family protein MCL1 in various tumor-derived cells [200] (Fig. 3). A further study showed that YM155 targets both, survivin and MCL1 in human histiocytic lymphoma and promyelocytic leukemia cells [201]. YM155 was found to induce apoptosis in these cells, and the underlying cytotoxic mechanism is tightly linked to caspase-8 activation [201].
In the pancreatic adenocarcinoma cell line PANC1, YM155 was found to evoke the ubiquitinylation and proteasomal degradation of EGFR, survivin, and XIAP, but not of BCL-XL or MCL1 [202]. Na and colleagues additionally report that YM155 reduces several other cancer-relevant molecules such as PI3K, extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) and STAT3 in PANC1 cells (Fig. 3). The fact that YM155 also inhibited the growth of MiaPaCa2 cells in vivo suggests that YM155 may be a valid therapeutic agent in the treatment of PDAC [202].
Data illustrating that YM155 targets molecules and pathways be- yond survivin were also collected when Tao and colleagues analyzed SK-NEP-1 Wilms tumor cells [163]. Transcriptome analyses showed that treating SK-NEP-1 cells with YM155 significantly induced 32 and reduced 54 genes. Although survivin was decreased after treatment with YM155, several other factors were also reduced (e.g., the apoptosis
inhibitor BCL2). Furthermore, many mRNAs encoding tumor-relevant molecules were altered after treatment with YM155. For example, YM155 evoked an upregulation of caspase-7, -9 and DIABLO (Fig. 3), which control apoptosis emenating from mitochondria. Moreover, YM155 induced the transcripts coding for the cell cycle regulator p21WAF/CIP1 and of FOXO3. These alterations in the cellular transcriptome may well be reasons for the anti-proliferative effects of YM155. Never- theless, also some members of the Inhibitor of the apoptosis-gene fam- ily, namely BIRC3 and BIRC8 were induced at the same time [163]. This leads to the suggestion, that YM155 to some extent also provokes sur- vival signals in SK-NEP-1 cells. The role of these factors on the efficacy of YM155 remains unclear. Surely, these RNA-based data need verifica- tion at the protein level and such analyses should be carried out in several cell types. Such data will further elucidate the molecular mech- anisms induced by YM155. Perhaps, they also allow identifying of opti- mal combination approaches involving YM155. The inhibition of DIABLO by survivin for example is important for apoptosis induced by the microtubuli-targeting drug taxol, and DIABLO and XIAP in conjunc- tion with survivin can block caspases [203]. On the other hand, p21 can antagonize cell death through cell cycle arrest, repair, and caspase inhi- bition [48,204].
In glioblastoma, YM155 was found to decrease the expression of
survivin and securin, both control mitosis, apoptosis, and tumorigenesis
[138] (Fig. 3). Securin is also known as pituitary tumor-transforming gene and can act as an oncogene in various cell types. The expression of securin is higher in glioblastoma than in normal brain tissue [205]. Hence, an effect of YM155 on securin can be a favorable additional effect of this drug. Moreover, the reduction of securin after treatment with YM155 is not necessarily a side effect. Data collected in A549 lung cancer cells with RNAi-reduced expression of survivin suggest that securin is a downstream target of survivin and that a combined inhibition of these cell cycle regulatory proteins favorably promotes cancer cell death [206].

Fig. 3. YM155 affects various cellular factors and signaling. YM155 affects survivin through transcriptional repression and protein stability. Furthermore, YM155 leads to the onset of DNA damage responses and to the induction of cell cycle regulatory (e.g., CDKN1A) and pro-apoptotic genes (e.g., caspase-9 and DIABLO). Inhibition of survivin further occurs via suppression of EGFR signaling and downstream factors. Additionally, repression of tumor-promoting gene expression (e.g., MCL-1 and securin) by YM155 accelerates cell death in a wide range of tumor tissues.

NSC80467 is a novel fused naphthquinone imidazolium in-house compound of the US National Cancer Institute’s Developmental Ther- apeutics Program in Bethesda, Maryland. Glaros and colleagues [207] compared NSC80467 and YM155 in the NCI-60 screen, which is a human tumor cell bank [208]. NSC80467 and YM155 were confirmed to block survivin protein levels. However, the researchers also found that YM155 as well as NSC80467 induce one of the most basic cellu- lar mechanisms, the DNA damage response [207] (Fig. 3). This path- way is engaged by most chemotherpeutic drugs [142,209]. The ability of NSC80467 and YM155 to preferentially inhibit DNA, over RNA and protein synthesis prompted to analyze DNA damage re- sponses in a panel of cell lines. Indeed, NSC80467 and YM155 evoke a dose-dependent induction of γH2A.X and of the corepressor KAP1. Phosphorylation of these proteins by the stressor kinases Ataxia tel- angiectasia mutated (ATM) and Ataxia telangiectasia mutated related (ATR) marks DNA damage events and the initiation of the cell’s attempt to repair them [142,210]. Importantly, low concentrations of NSC80467 and YM155 are able to induce the accumulation of γH2A.X but do not inhibit survivin expression [207]. Noteworthy, studies using glioma and rectal cancer cell lines revealed an addition- al effect of nuclear survivin on enhanced double strand break repair activity after radiation-induced DNA damage [211]. Survivin was shown to interact with key proteins of primary DNA damage re- sponse, like γH2A.X and KU70 [212]. Therefore, it can be expected that YM155 is not only able to inhibit survivin expression but also to compromise the DNA repair ability of cells. This may lead to in- creased sensitivity of tumor cells for therapy-induced cell death. From these results it was concluded that NSC80467 and YM155 pri- marily are DNA damaging agents and that the repression of survivin is a secondary event [207,213]. It should also be noted that YM155 and doxorubicin share some structural features (Fig. 2).
The drugs may share this mechanism with terameprocol which can
also stall transcription and the SP1-dependent expression of survivin [104–106]. Yet, the observation that the pro-apoptotic effects of doxo- rubicin depend on the expression of DNA-PK in glioblastoma cells [144], but that YM155 causes apoptosis independent of DNA-PK expres- sion [138], suggests that YM155 may well be more than just a DNA dam- aging drug. It may also be relevant that survivin promotes the activity of DNA-PK to allow DNA damage recognition and subsequent signaling cascades for DNA repair in cells derived from glioblastoma and colon cancer [212,214]. Data on which moieties of YM155 confer certain phar- macological effects can also permit the creation of hybrid molecules. However, since it is unclear which parts of YM155 mediate its biological effects, this is a challenging task at present.
Remarkably, a recent study identified another agent targeting survivin by a high throughput strategy with 4080 bp of the human survivin promoter [215]. This agent termed FL118 is able to stall the pro- liferation of various p53-proficient and p53-deficient cancer cell lines in vitro and in mouse xenografts. FL118 has structural similarities to the topoisomerase I inhibitor irinotecan. Of note, despite its discovery in a survivin-based screen FL118 inhibits the expression of the anti- apoptotic factors MCL1, XIAP, and cIAP2 [215].
The work by Arora and colleagues assessing the efficiency of YM155 against Merkel carcinomas also indicates that instead of mitotic catas- trophe, YM155 disrupted DNA synthesis [134]. DNA damaging agents promote DNA damage signaling activating p53. The observation that YM155 activates p53 in ALL cells [100], may also be caused by YM155 inducing DNA damage.
If YM155 primarily causes DNA damage, it also has to be considered whether combinations of YM155 and other chemotherapeutics can ac- centuate undesired effects. Currently, ES is treated with local surgery, radiotherapy, and high dose chemotherapy [153,154], and survivin ap- pears as a promising target in ES [152]. Antracyclines (doxorubicin, dau- norubicin, epirubicin, etc.; Fig. 2) can be included in such regimen and a retrospective analysis of patients below 17 years revealed a high dose- dependent incidence of cardiac toxicity [216]. One cannot exclude that
YM155 and antracycline co-administration aggregates symptoms of cardiotoxicity.
The studies summarized above also illustrate that virally trans- formed tumor cells appear particularly sensitive to drugs acting against survivin [103,109,134]. It though remains unclear whether this is really due to the repression of survivin or linked to the genotoxic stress evoked by such agents. Perhaps, the viral transforming principle encoded in the host genome is more sensitive to transcription inhibition upon DNA damage, or such cells are more susceptible to drugs interca- lating into DNA.
Another general difficulty in the comparison of drug effects on cells may be that the stress-inducible expression of survivin can depend on p53 [25].
In the light of the various effects of YM155, it will also be interesting to see whether YM155′s effects on undifferentiated hESCs [185] rely solely on the impaired expression of survivin. For example, despite their similar effects on survivin, YM155 and quercetin had a differential effect on p53 target genes [185], and p53 and its posttranslational mod- ifications are differentially regulated in undifferentiated and differenti- ated hESCs [217]. Furthermore, hESCs are highly sensitive against genotoxic stress and DNA damaging drugs were suggested as a strategy to eliminate teratoma forming populations [218]. Thus, the DNA damag- ing effects caused by YM155 [207] may also be responsible for the elim- ination of undifferentiated hPSCs.
Modern chemotherapies consist of drug cocktails. Therapeutic success rates often correlate directly with the possibility of surgical re- moval as well as with the availability of precise pharmacological ap- proaches eliminating tumors. Examples for targeted approaches are the elimination of the oncogenic leukemia fusion protein PML–RARα in promyelocytic leukemia [219], the abrogation of male/female sex hormone-dependent growth and survival signals [96,220], and the inhi- bition of dysregulated growth factor signaling [221,222]. Anti-sense nu- cleotides targeting the survivin mRNA are a more specific method to eliminate oncogenic survivin. LY2181308 currently undergoes clinical testing [189,190] and SPC3042 is a novel potent anti-sense molecule against survivin [223]. The clinical validity of such agents remains to be verified.

⦁ Conclusions

This review focuses on YM155. We discuss potential molecular mechanisms exerted by this drug in different settings and how YM155 affects transcription factors and regulators controlling survivin and other factors. Due to the limitations in the specificity of YM155 and NSC 80467 for survivin [207], these agents may have to be considered as drugs primarily causing DNA damage. However, even if YM155 is not a highly specific survivin inhibitor, it may well be a valuable drug in the fight against cancer.

Acknowledgement

Work done in our groups is supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe (Grants Nr. 110908 and Nr. 110125), the Wilhelm-Sander-Stiftung (Grant Nr. 2010.078.2), the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung/Center for Sepsis Control and Care, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft/Graduiertenkolleg RTG1715.

References
D.C.⦁ ⦁ Altieri,⦁ ⦁ Targeting⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ cancer,⦁ ⦁ Cancer⦁ ⦁ Lett.⦁ ⦁ 332⦁ ⦁ (2)⦁ ⦁ (2013)⦁ ⦁ 225⦁ –⦁ 228.
N.K.⦁ ⦁ Sah,⦁ ⦁ Z.⦁ ⦁ Khan,⦁ ⦁ G.J.⦁ ⦁ Khan,⦁ ⦁ P.S.⦁ ⦁ Bisen,⦁ ⦁ Structural,⦁ ⦁ functional⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ therapeutic⦁ ⦁ biolo- ⦁ gy of survivin, Cancer Lett. 244 (2006)⦁ ⦁ 164⦁ –⦁ 171.
D.C. Altieri, Survivin and IAP proteins in cell-death mechanisms, Biochem. J. 430 ⦁ (2010)⦁ ⦁ 199⦁ –⦁ 205.
S.K. Knauer, W. Mann, R.H. Stauber, Survivin⦁ ‘⦁ s dual role: an export⦁ ‘⦁ s view, Cell ⦁ Cycle 6 (2007)⦁ ⦁ 518⦁ –⦁ 521.

M.⦁ Castedo, J.L. Perfettini, T. Roumier, K. Andreau, R. Medema, G. Kroemer, Cell ⦁ death by mitotic catastrophe: a molecular de⦁ fi⦁ nition, Oncogene 23 (2004) ⦁ 2825⦁ –⦁ 2837.
S.P.⦁ ⦁ Wheatley,⦁ ⦁ I.A.⦁ ⦁ McNeish,⦁ ⦁ Survivin:⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ protein⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ dual⦁ ⦁ roles⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ mitosis⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ ap- ⦁ optosis, Int. Rev. Cytol. 247 (2005)⦁ ⦁ 35⦁ –⦁ 88.
D.N.⦁ ⦁ Church,⦁ ⦁ D.C.⦁ ⦁ Talbot,⦁ ⦁ Survivin⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ solid⦁ ⦁ tumors:⦁ ⦁ rationale⦁ ⦁ for⦁ ⦁ development⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ in- ⦁ hibitors, Curr. Oncol. Rep. 14 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 120⦁ –⦁ 128.
F.⦁ ⦁ Rödel,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Sprenger,⦁ ⦁ B.⦁ ⦁ Kaina,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Liersch,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Rodel,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Fulda,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Hehlgans,⦁ ⦁ Survivin⦁ ⦁ as ⦁ a ⦁ prognostic/predictive ⦁ marker and molecular target in cancer therapy, Curr. Med. ⦁ Chem. 19 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 3679⦁ –⦁ 3688.
A. Lladser, C. Sanhueza, R. Kiessling, A.F. Quest, Is survivin the potential⦁ ⦁ Achilles⦁ ‘ ⦁ heel of cancer? Adv. Cancer Res. 111 (2011)⦁ ⦁ 1⦁ –⦁ 37.
B.M.⦁ ⦁ Ryan,⦁ ⦁ N.⦁ ⦁ O⦁ ‘⦁ Donovan,⦁ ⦁ M.J.⦁ ⦁ Duffy,⦁ ⦁ Survivin:⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ new⦁ ⦁ target⦁ ⦁ for⦁ ⦁ anti-cancer⦁ ⦁ therapy, ⦁ Cancer Treat. Rev. 35 (2009)⦁ ⦁ 553⦁ –⦁ 562.
H. Caldas, Y. Jiang, M.P. Holloway, J. Fangusaro, C. Mahotka, E.M. Conway, R.A. ⦁ Altura, Survivin splice variants regulate the balance between proliferation and ⦁ cell death, Oncogene 24 (2005)⦁ ⦁ 1994⦁ –⦁ 2007.
S.K.⦁ ⦁ Knauer,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Bier,⦁ ⦁ P.⦁ ⦁ Schlag,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Fritzmann,⦁ ⦁ W.⦁ ⦁ Dietmaier,⦁ ⦁ F.⦁ ⦁ Rödel,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Klein-Hitpass,
A.F. Kovács, C. Döring, M.L. Hansmann, W.K. Hofmann, M. Kunkel, C. Brochhausen,
K. Engels, B.M. Lippert, W. Mann, R.H. Stauber, The survivin isoform survivin-3B is cytoprotective and can function as a chromosomal passenger complex protein, Cell Cycle 6 (2007) 1502–1509.
P.N.⦁ ⦁ Span,⦁ ⦁ V.C.⦁ ⦁ Tjan-Heijnen,⦁ ⦁ J.J.⦁ ⦁ Heuvel,⦁ ⦁ J.B.⦁ ⦁ de⦁ ⦁ Kok,⦁ ⦁ J.A.⦁ ⦁ Foekens,⦁ ⦁ F.C.⦁ ⦁ Sweep,⦁ ⦁ Do⦁ ⦁ the ⦁ survivin (BIRC5) splice variants modulate or add to the prognostic value of total ⦁ survivin in breast cancer? Clin. Chem. 52 (2006)⦁ ⦁ 1693⦁ –⦁ 1700.
F.⦁ ⦁ Végran,⦁ ⦁ R.⦁ ⦁ Boidot,⦁ ⦁ F.⦁ ⦁ Bonnetain,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Cadouot,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Chevrier,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Lizard-Nacol,⦁ ⦁ Apopto- ⦁ sis gene signature of survivin and its splice variant expression in breast carcinoma, ⦁ Endocr. Relat. Cancer 18 (2011)⦁ ⦁ 783⦁ –⦁ 792.
F.⦁ ⦁ Végran,⦁ ⦁ R.⦁ ⦁ Boidot,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Oudin,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Defrain,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Rebucci,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Lizard-Nacol,⦁ ⦁ Association⦁ ⦁ of ⦁ p53⦁ ⦁ gene⦁ ⦁ alterations⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ expression⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ antiapoptotic⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ splice⦁ ⦁ variants ⦁ in breast cancer, Oncogene 26 (2007) 290⦁ –⦁ 297.
D.S. O⦁ ‘⦁ Connor, D. Grossman, J. Plescia, F. Li, H. Zhang, A. Villa, S. Tognin, P.C. ⦁ Marchisio, D.C. Altieri, Regulation of apoptosis at cell division by p34cdc2 phos- ⦁ phorylation⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ survivin,⦁ ⦁ Proc.⦁ ⦁ Natl.⦁ ⦁ Acad.⦁ ⦁ Sci.⦁ ⦁ U.⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ 97⦁ ⦁ (2000)⦁ ⦁ 13103⦁ –⦁ 13107.
R.M.⦁ ⦁ Barrett,⦁ ⦁ T.P.⦁ ⦁ Osborne,⦁ ⦁ S.P.⦁ ⦁ Wheatley,⦁ ⦁ Phosphorylation⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ at⦁ ⦁ threonine ⦁ 34⦁ ⦁ inhibits⦁ ⦁ its⦁ ⦁ mitotic⦁ ⦁ function⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ enhances⦁ ⦁ its⦁ ⦁ cytoprotective⦁ ⦁ activity,⦁ ⦁ Cell⦁ ⦁ Cycle⦁ ⦁ 8 ⦁ (2009)⦁ ⦁ 278⦁ –⦁ 283.
O.⦁ ⦁ Surova,⦁ ⦁ B.⦁ ⦁ Zhivotovsky,⦁ ⦁ Various⦁ ⦁ modes⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ cell⦁ ⦁ death⦁ ⦁ induced⦁ ⦁ by⦁ ⦁ DNA⦁ ⦁ damage, ⦁ Oncogene 32 (33) (2013)⦁ ⦁ 3789⦁ –⦁ 3797.
H.⦁ ⦁ Yamamoto,⦁ ⦁ C.Y.⦁ ⦁ Ngan,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Monden,⦁ ⦁ Cancer⦁ ⦁ cells⦁ ⦁ survive⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ survivin,⦁ ⦁ Cancer⦁ ⦁ Sci. ⦁ 99 (2008)⦁ ⦁ 1709⦁ –⦁ 1714.
M.T.⦁ ⦁ Riolo,⦁ ⦁ Z.A.⦁ ⦁ Cooper,⦁ ⦁ M.P.⦁ ⦁ Holloway,⦁ ⦁ Y.⦁ ⦁ Cheng,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Bianchi,⦁ ⦁ E.⦁ ⦁ Yakirevich,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Ma,⦁ ⦁ Y.E. ⦁ C⦁ hin, R.A. Altura, Histone deacetylase 6 (HDAC6) deacetylates survivin for its nu- ⦁ clear⦁ ⦁ export⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ breast⦁ ⦁ cancer,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Biol.⦁ ⦁ Chem.⦁ ⦁ 287⦁ ⦁ (2012)⦁ ⦁ 10885⦁ –⦁ 10893.
H. Wang, M.P. Holloway, L. Ma, Z.A. Cooper, M. Riolo, A. Samkari, K.S. ⦁ E⦁ l⦁ e⦁ n⦁ i⦁ t⦁ o⦁ b⦁ a⦁ -⦁ J⦁ o⦁ h⦁ n⦁ s⦁ o⦁ n⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ Y⦁ .⦁ E.⦁ ⦁ C⦁ h⦁ i⦁ n⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ R⦁ .⦁ A⦁ .⦁ ⦁ A⦁ l⦁ t⦁ u⦁ r⦁ a⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ A⦁ c⦁ e⦁ t⦁ y⦁ l⦁ a⦁ t⦁ i⦁ o⦁ n⦁ ⦁ d⦁ i⦁ r⦁ e⦁ c⦁ ts⦁ ⦁ s⦁ u⦁ r⦁ v⦁ i⦁ v⦁ i⦁ n⦁ ⦁ n⦁ u⦁ c⦁ l⦁ e⦁ a⦁ r ⦁ localization to repress STAT3 oncogenic activity, J. Biol. Chem. 285 (2010) ⦁ 3⦁ 6129⦁ –⦁ 36137.
V.⦁ ⦁ Arora,⦁ ⦁ H.H.⦁ ⦁ Cheung,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Plenchette,⦁ ⦁ O.C.⦁ ⦁ Micali,⦁ ⦁ P.⦁ ⦁ Liston,⦁ ⦁ R.G.⦁ ⦁ Korneluk,⦁ ⦁ Degrada- ⦁ t⦁ ion⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ by⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ X-linked⦁ ⦁ inhibitor⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ apoptosis⦁ ⦁ (XIAP)⦁ –⦁ XAF1⦁ ⦁ complex,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Biol. ⦁ Chem. 282 (2007)⦁ ⦁ 26202⦁ –⦁ 26209.
H.H.⦁ ⦁ Cheung,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Plenchette,⦁ ⦁ C.J.⦁ ⦁ Kern,⦁ ⦁ D.J.⦁ ⦁ Mahoney,⦁ ⦁ R.G.⦁ ⦁ Korneluk,⦁ ⦁ The⦁ ⦁ RING⦁ ⦁ domain ⦁ of cIAP1 mediates the degradation of RING-bearing inhibitor of apoptosis proteins ⦁ b⦁ y distinct pathways, Mol. Biol. Cell 19 (2008)⦁ ⦁ 2729⦁ –⦁ 2740.
B. Gu, W.G. Zhu, Surf the post-translational modi⦁ fi⦁ cation network of p53 regula- ⦁ t⦁ ion, Int. J. Biol. Sci. 8 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 672⦁ –⦁ 684.
G⦁ .⦁ ⦁ Schneider,⦁ ⦁ O.H.⦁ ⦁ Krämer,⦁ ⦁ NFkappaB/p53⦁ ⦁ crosstalk⦁ ⦁ —⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ promising⦁ ⦁ new⦁ ⦁ therapeutic ⦁ t⦁ arget, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1815 (2011)⦁ ⦁ 90⦁ –⦁ 103.
W.H.⦁ ⦁ Hoffman,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Biade,⦁ ⦁ J.T.⦁ ⦁ Zilfou,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Chen,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Murphy,⦁ ⦁ Transcriptional⦁ ⦁ repression ⦁ of the anti-apoptotic survivin gene by wild type p53, J. Biol. Chem. 277 (2002) ⦁ 3⦁ 247⦁ –⦁ 3257.
A. Mirza, M. McGuirk, T.N. Hockenberry, Q. Wu, H. Ashar, S. Black, S.F. Wen, L. ⦁ W⦁ ang,⦁ ⦁ P.⦁ ⦁ Kirschmeier,⦁ ⦁ W.R.⦁ ⦁ Bishop,⦁ ⦁ L.L.⦁ ⦁ Nielsen,⦁ ⦁ C.B.⦁ ⦁ Pickett,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Liu,⦁ ⦁ Human⦁ ⦁ survivin ⦁ is negatively regulated by wild-type p53 and participates in p53-dependent apo- ⦁ p⦁ totic pathway, Oncogene 21 (2002)⦁ ⦁ 2613⦁ –⦁ 2622.
G.⦁ ⦁ Schneider,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Henrich,⦁ ⦁ G.⦁ ⦁ Greiner,⦁ ⦁ V.⦁ ⦁ Wolf,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Lovas,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ Wieczorek, ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Wagner,⦁ ⦁ S. ⦁ Reichardt,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ von⦁ ⦁ Werder, R.M.⦁ ⦁ Schmid,⦁ ⦁ F.⦁ ⦁ Weih,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Heinzel,⦁ ⦁ D.⦁ ⦁ Saur,⦁ ⦁ O.H.⦁ ⦁ Krämer, ⦁ Cros⦁ s talk between stimulated NF-kappaB ⦁ and the ⦁ tumor suppressor p53, Oncogene ⦁ 2⦁ 9 ⦁ (2010)⦁ ⦁ 2795⦁ –⦁ 2806.
A⦁ . Brandl, T. Wagner, K.M. Uhlig, S.K. Knauer, R.H. Stauber, F. Melchior, G. ⦁ Schneider, T. Heinzel, O.H. Krämer, Dynamically regulated ⦁ sumoylation ⦁ of HDAC2 ⦁ controls p53 deacetylation and restricts apoptosis following genotoxic stress, ⦁ J. ⦁ Mol. Cell Biol. 4 (5) (2012)⦁ ⦁ 284⦁ –⦁ 293.
A.K.⦁ ⦁ Frank,⦁ ⦁ J.I.⦁ ⦁ Leu,⦁ ⦁ Y.⦁ ⦁ Zhou,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Devarajan,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Nedelko,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Klein-Szanto,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Hollstein,
M.E. Murphy, The codon 72 polymorphism of p53 regulates interaction with NF-{kappa}B and transactivation of genes involved in immunity and inflammation, Mol. Cell. Biol. 31 (2011) 1201–1213.
R.H. Wang, Y. Zheng, H.S. Kim, X. Xu, L. Cao, T. Luhasen, M.H. Lee, C. Xiao, A. ⦁ Vassilopoulos, W. Chen, K. Gardner, Y.G. Man, M.C. Hung, T. Finkel, C.X. Deng, ⦁ I⦁ nterplay⦁ ⦁ among⦁ ⦁ BRCA1,⦁ ⦁ SIRT1,⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ during⦁ ⦁ BRCA1-associated⦁ ⦁ tumorigen- ⦁ e⦁ sis, Mol. Cell 32 (2008)⦁ ⦁ 11⦁ –⦁ 20.
P.O. Estève, H.G. Chin, S. Pradhan, Human maintenance DNA (cytosine-5)- ⦁ me⦁ thyltransferase and p53 modulate expression of p53-repressed promoters, ⦁ Proc.⦁ ⦁ Natl.⦁ ⦁ Acad.⦁ ⦁ Sci.⦁ ⦁ U.⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ 102⦁ ⦁ (2005)⦁ ⦁ 1000⦁ –⦁ 1005.
R.⦁ ⦁ Xu,⦁ ⦁ P.⦁ ⦁ Zhang,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Huang,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Ge,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Lu,⦁ ⦁ G.⦁ ⦁ Qian,⦁ ⦁ Sp1⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ Sp3⦁ ⦁ regulate⦁ ⦁ basal⦁ ⦁ transcrip- ⦁ tion of the survivin gene, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 356⦁ ⦁ (2007) 286⦁ –⦁ 292.
⦁ O.H.⦁ ⦁ Krämer,⦁ ⦁ D.⦁ ⦁ Baus,⦁ ⦁ S.K.⦁ ⦁ Knauer,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Stein,⦁ ⦁ E.⦁ ⦁ Jager,⦁ ⦁ R.H.⦁ ⦁ Stauber,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Grez,⦁ ⦁ E.⦁ ⦁ P⦁ fi⦁ tzner,
T. Heinzel, Acetylation of Stat1 modulates NF-kappaB activity, Genes Dev. 20 (2006) 473–485.
J. Füllgrabe, E. Kavanagh, B. Joseph, Histone onco-modi⦁ fi⦁ cations, Oncogene 30 ⦁ (2011)⦁ ⦁ 3391⦁ –⦁ 3403.
M. Yun, J. Wu, J.L. Workman, B. Li, Readers of histone modi⦁ fi⦁ cations, Cell Res. 21 ⦁ (2011)⦁ ⦁ 564⦁ –⦁ 578.
P.O. Estève, H.G. Chin, S. Pradhan, Molecular mechanisms of transactivation and ⦁ doxorubicin-mediated repression of survivin gene in cancer cells, J. Biol. ⦁ Chem. ⦁ 282 (2007)⦁ ⦁ 2615⦁ –⦁ 2625.
A.⦁ ⦁ Smallwood,⦁ ⦁ P.O.⦁ ⦁ Estève,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Pradhan,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Carey,⦁ ⦁ Functional⦁ ⦁ cooperation⦁ ⦁ between ⦁ HP1⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ DNMT1⦁ ⦁ mediates⦁ ⦁ gene⦁ ⦁ silencing,⦁ ⦁ Genes⦁ ⦁ Dev.⦁ ⦁ 21⦁ ⦁ (2007)⦁ ⦁ 1169⦁ –⦁ 1178.
E.⦁ ⦁ Hervouet,⦁ ⦁ F.M.⦁ ⦁ Vallette,⦁ ⦁ P.F.⦁ ⦁ Cartron,⦁ ⦁ Impact⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ DNA⦁ ⦁ methyltransferases⦁ ⦁ ex- ⦁ pression⦁ ⦁ on⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ methylation⦁ ⦁ status⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ apoptosis-associated⦁ ⦁ genes⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ glioblastoma ⦁ multiforme, Cell Death Dis. 1 (2010)⦁ ⦁ e8.
J.R.⦁ ⦁ Kanwar,⦁ ⦁ S.K.⦁ ⦁ Kamalapuram,⦁ ⦁ R.K.⦁ ⦁ Kanwar,⦁ ⦁ Survivin⦁ ⦁ signaling⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ clinical⦁ ⦁ oncology: ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ multifaceted⦁ ⦁ dragon,⦁ ⦁ Med.⦁ ⦁ Res.⦁ ⦁ Rev.⦁ ⦁ 33⦁ ⦁ (4)⦁ ⦁ (2013)⦁ ⦁ 765⦁ –⦁ 789.
B.B.⦁ ⦁ Aggarwal,⦁ ⦁ A.B.⦁ ⦁ Kunnumakkara,⦁ ⦁ K.B.⦁ ⦁ Harikumar,⦁ ⦁ S.R.⦁ ⦁ Gupta,⦁ ⦁ S.T.⦁ ⦁ Tharakan,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Koca,
S. Dey, B. Sung, Signal transducer and activator of transcription-3, inflammation, and cancer: how intimate is the relationship? Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1171 (2009) 59–76.
Y.⦁ ⦁ Guo,⦁ ⦁ F.⦁ ⦁ Xu,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Lu,⦁ ⦁ Z.⦁ ⦁ Duan,⦁ ⦁ Z.⦁ ⦁ Zhang,⦁ ⦁ Interleukin-6⦁ ⦁ signaling⦁ ⦁ pathway⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ targeted ⦁ therapy for cancer, Cancer Treat. Rev. 38 (7) (2012)⦁ ⦁ 904⦁ –⦁ 910.
H. Clevers, R. Nusse, Wnt/beta-catenin signaling and disease, Cell 149 (2012) ⦁ 1192⦁ –⦁ 1205.
J.F.⦁ ⦁ Whit⦁ fi⦁ eld,⦁ ⦁ Calcium,⦁ ⦁ calcium-sensing⦁ ⦁ receptor⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ colon⦁ ⦁ cancer,⦁ ⦁ Cancer⦁ ⦁ Lett.⦁ ⦁ 275 ⦁ (2009)⦁ ⦁ 9⦁ –⦁ 16.
P.⦁ ⦁ Obexer,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Hagenbuchner,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Unterkircher,⦁ ⦁ N.⦁ ⦁ Sachsenmaier,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Seifarth,⦁ ⦁ G.⦁ ⦁ Bock,
V. Porto, K. Geiger, M. Ausserlechner, Repression of BIRC5/survivin by FOXO3/FKHRL1 sensitizes human neuroblastoma cells to DNA damage-induced apoptosis, Mol. Biol. Cell 20 (2009) 2041–2048.
J.⦁ ⦁ Hagenbuchner,⦁ ⦁ A.V.⦁ ⦁ Kuznetsov,⦁ ⦁ P.⦁ ⦁ Obexer,⦁ ⦁ M.J.⦁ ⦁ Ausserlechner,⦁ ⦁ BIRC5/Survivin⦁ ⦁ en- ⦁ hances aerobic glycolysis and drug resistance by altered regulation of the mito- ⦁ chondrial fusion/⦁ fi⦁ ssion machinery, Oncogene 32 (2013) 4748⦁ –⦁ 4757.
J. Hagenbuchner, M.J. Ausserlechner, Mitochondria and FOXO3: breath or die, ⦁ Front. Physiol. 4 (2013)⦁ ⦁ 147.
S.K.⦁ ⦁ Knauer,⦁ ⦁ O.H.⦁ ⦁ Krämer,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Knösel,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Engels,⦁ ⦁ F.⦁ ⦁ Rodel,⦁ ⦁ A.F.⦁ ⦁ Kovács,⦁ ⦁ W.⦁ ⦁ Dietmaier,⦁ ⦁ L. ⦁ Klein-Hitpass, N. Habtemichael, A. Schweitzer, J. Brieger, C. Rödel, W. Mann, I. ⦁ Petersen, T. Heinzel, R.H. Stauber, Nuclear export is essential for the tumor- ⦁ promoting activity of survivin, FASEB J. 21 (2007)⦁ ⦁ 207⦁ –⦁ 216.
M.⦁ ⦁ Pal⦁ ⦁ Bhadra,⦁ ⦁ M.J.⦁ ⦁ Ramaiah,⦁ ⦁ L.T.⦁ ⦁ Reddy,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Krishnan,⦁ ⦁ P.⦁ ⦁ Sncvl,⦁ ⦁ S.K.⦁ ⦁ Babu,⦁ ⦁ A.K.⦁ ⦁ Tiwari,
M.J. Rao, J.S. Yadav, U. Bhadra, Plant HDAC inhibitor chrysin arrest cell growth and induce p21WAF-1 by altering chromatin of STAT response element in A375 cells, BMC Cancer 12 (2012) 180.
S. Spange, T. Wagner, T. Heinzel, O.H. Krämer, Acetylation of non-histone proteins ⦁ modulates⦁ ⦁ cellular⦁ ⦁ signalling⦁ ⦁ at⦁ ⦁ multiple⦁ ⦁ levels,⦁ ⦁ Int.⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Biochem.⦁ ⦁ Cell⦁ ⦁ Biol.⦁ ⦁ 41⦁ ⦁ (2009) ⦁ 185⦁ –⦁ 198.
S.⦁ ⦁ Zhu,⦁ ⦁ Y.⦁ ⦁ Li,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Zhao,⦁ ⦁ P.⦁ ⦁ Hou,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Shangguan,⦁ ⦁ R.⦁ ⦁ Yao,⦁ ⦁ W.⦁ ⦁ Zhang,⦁ ⦁ Y.⦁ ⦁ Zhang,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Tan,⦁ ⦁ B. ⦁ Huang, J. Lu, TSA-induced JMJD2B downregulation is associated with cyclin ⦁ B1-dependent survivin degradation and apoptosis in LNCap cells, J. Cell. Biochem. ⦁ 113 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 2375⦁ –⦁ 2382.
J.S.⦁ ⦁ Jin,⦁ ⦁ T.Y.⦁ ⦁ Tsao,⦁ ⦁ P.C.⦁ ⦁ Sun,⦁ ⦁ C.P.⦁ ⦁ Yu,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Tzao,⦁ ⦁ SAHA⦁ ⦁ inhibits⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ growth⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ colon⦁ ⦁ tumors ⦁ by decreasing histone deacetylase and the expression of cyclin D1 and survivin, ⦁ Pathol. Oncol. Res. 18 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 713⦁ –⦁ 720.
Y.F.⦁ ⦁ Hsu,⦁ ⦁ J.R.⦁ ⦁ Sheu,⦁ ⦁ C.H.⦁ ⦁ Lin,⦁ ⦁ D.S.⦁ ⦁ Yang,⦁ ⦁ G.⦁ ⦁ Hsiao,⦁ ⦁ G.⦁ ⦁ Ou,⦁ ⦁ P.T.⦁ ⦁ Chiu,⦁ ⦁ Y.H.⦁ ⦁ Huang,⦁ ⦁ W.H. ⦁ Kuo, M.J. Hsu, Trichostatin A and sirtinol suppressed survivin expression through ⦁ AMPK and p38MAPK in HT29 colon cancer cells, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1820 ⦁ (2012)⦁ ⦁ 104⦁ –⦁ 115.
A. Lachenmayer, S. Toffanin, L. Cabellos, C. Alsinet, Y. Hoshida, A. Villanueva, B. ⦁ Minguez,⦁ ⦁ H.W.⦁ ⦁ Tsai,⦁ ⦁ S.C.⦁ ⦁ Ward,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Thung,⦁ ⦁ S.L.⦁ ⦁ Friedman,⦁ ⦁ J.M.⦁ ⦁ Llovet,⦁ ⦁ Combination ⦁ therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: additive preclinical ef⦁ fi⦁ cacy of the HDAC in- ⦁ hibitor panobinostat with sorafenib, J. Hepatol. 56 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 1343⦁ –⦁ 1350.
O.H.⦁ ⦁ Krämer,⦁ ⦁ HDAC2:⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ critical⦁ ⦁ factor⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ health⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ disease,⦁ ⦁ Trends⦁ ⦁ Pharmacol.⦁ ⦁ Sci. ⦁ 30 (2009)⦁ ⦁ 647⦁ –⦁ 655.
L.⦁ ⦁ Zhang,⦁ ⦁ G.⦁ ⦁ Wang,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Wang,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Song,⦁ ⦁ Y.⦁ ⦁ Leng,⦁ ⦁ X.⦁ ⦁ Wang,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Kang,⦁ ⦁ VPA⦁ ⦁ inhibits⦁ ⦁ breast ⦁ cancer cell migration by speci⦁ fi⦁ cally targeting HDAC2 and down-regulating ⦁ Survivin, Mol. Cell. Biochem. 361 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 39⦁ –⦁ 45.
J. ⦁ Yi, ⦁ J. ⦁ Luo, SIRT1 and p53, effect on cancer, senescence and beyond, Biochim. ⦁ Biophys. Acta 1804 (2010)⦁ ⦁ 1684⦁ –⦁ 1689.
M. Wieczorek, T. Ginter, P. Brand, T. Heinzel, O.H. Krämer, Acetylation modulates ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ STAT⦁ ⦁ signaling⦁ ⦁ code,⦁ ⦁ Cytokine⦁ ⦁ Growth⦁ ⦁ Factor⦁ ⦁ Rev.⦁ ⦁ 23⦁ ⦁ (2012)⦁ ⦁ 293⦁ –⦁ 305.
H. ⦁ Okamoto, ⦁ K. ⦁ Shiraki, ⦁ R. ⦁ Yasuda, ⦁ K. ⦁ Danjo, ⦁ Y. ⦁ Watanabe, Chitosan⦁ –⦁ interferon-beta ⦁ gene complex powder ⦁ for ⦁ inhalation treatment ⦁ of ⦁ lung ⦁ metastasis ⦁ in ⦁ mice, ⦁ J. ⦁ Control. ⦁ Release 150 (2011)⦁ ⦁ 187⦁ –⦁ 195.
S.⦁ ⦁ Pollok,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Ginter,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Günzel,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Pieper,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Henke,⦁ ⦁ R.H.⦁ ⦁ Stauber,⦁ ⦁ W.⦁ ⦁ Reichardt,⦁ ⦁ O.H. ⦁ Krämer, Interferon alpha-armed nanoparticles trigger rapid and sustained ⦁ STAT1-dependent ⦁ anti-viral cellular responses, Cell. Signal. 25 (2013)⦁ ⦁ 989⦁ –⦁ 998.
V.⦁ ⦁ Coothankandaswamy,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Elangovan,⦁ ⦁ N.⦁ ⦁ Singh,⦁ ⦁ P.D.⦁ ⦁ Prasad,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Thangaraju,⦁ ⦁ V. ⦁ Ganapathy,⦁ ⦁ The⦁ ⦁ plasma⦁ ⦁ membrane⦁ ⦁ transporter⦁ ⦁ SLC5A8⦁ ⦁ suppresses⦁ ⦁ tumour⦁ ⦁ pro- ⦁ gression through depletion of survivin without involving its transport function, ⦁ Biochem. ⦁ J. ⦁ 450 (2013)⦁ ⦁ 169⦁ –⦁ 178.
M.⦁ ⦁ Thangaraju,⦁ ⦁ E.⦁ ⦁ Gopal,⦁ ⦁ P.M.⦁ ⦁ Martin,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Ananth,⦁ ⦁ S.B.⦁ ⦁ Smith,⦁ ⦁ P.D.⦁ ⦁ Prasad,⦁ ⦁ E.⦁ ⦁ Sterneck,
V. Ganapathy, SLC5A8 triggers tumor cell apoptosis through pyruvate-dependent inhibition of histone deacetylases, Cancer Res. 66 (2006) 11560–11564.
M.⦁ ⦁ Thangaraju,⦁ ⦁ K.N.⦁ ⦁ Carswell,⦁ ⦁ P.D.⦁ ⦁ Prasad,⦁ ⦁ V.⦁ ⦁ Ganapathy,⦁ ⦁ Colon⦁ ⦁ cancer⦁ ⦁ cells⦁ ⦁ main- ⦁ tain low levels of pyruvate to avoid cell death caused by inhibition of ⦁ HDAC1/HDAC3, Biochem. J. 417 (2009)⦁ ⦁ 379⦁ –⦁ 389.

W.H.⦁ ⦁ Koppenol,⦁ ⦁ P.L.⦁ ⦁ Bounds,⦁ ⦁ C.V.⦁ ⦁ Dang,⦁ ⦁ Otto⦁ ⦁ Warburg⦁ ‘⦁ s⦁ ⦁ contributions⦁ ⦁ to⦁ ⦁ current ⦁ concepts of cancer metabolism, Nat. Rev. Cancer 11 (2011)⦁ ⦁ 325⦁ –⦁ 337.
P.⦁ ⦁ Icard,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Lincet,⦁ ⦁ A⦁ ⦁ global⦁ ⦁ view⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ biochemical⦁ ⦁ pathways⦁ ⦁ involved⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ regula- ⦁ tion ⦁ of ⦁ the metabolism ⦁ of ⦁ cancer cells, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1826 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 423⦁ –⦁ 433.
J.E.⦁ ⦁ Bradner,⦁ ⦁ R.⦁ ⦁ Mak,⦁ ⦁ S.K.⦁ ⦁ Tanguturi,⦁ ⦁ R.⦁ ⦁ Mazitschek,⦁ ⦁ S.J.⦁ ⦁ Haggarty,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Ross,⦁ ⦁ C.Y.⦁ ⦁ Chang,
J. Bosco, N. West, E. Morse, K. Lin, J.P. Shen, N.P. Kwiatkowski, N. Gheldof, J. Dekker,
D.J. DeAngelo, S.A. Carr, S.L. Schreiber, T.R. Golub, B.L. Ebert, Chemical genetic strat- egy identifies histone deacetylase 1 (HDAC1) and HDAC2 as therapeutic targets in sickle cell disease, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107 (2010) 12617–12622.
J.⦁ ⦁ Sehested,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Diernaes,⦁ ⦁ P.D.⦁ ⦁ Møller,⦁ ⦁ E.⦁ ⦁ Skadhauge,⦁ ⦁ Transport⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ butyrate⦁ ⦁ across⦁ ⦁ the ⦁ isolated bovine rumen epithelium⦁ –⦁ interaction with sodium, chloride and bicar- ⦁ bonate,⦁ ⦁ Comp.⦁ ⦁ Biochem.⦁ ⦁ Physiol.⦁ ⦁ A⦁ ⦁ Mol.⦁ ⦁ Integr.⦁ ⦁ Physiol.⦁ ⦁ 123⦁ ⦁ (1999)⦁ ⦁ 399⦁ –⦁ 408.
O.H.⦁ ⦁ Krämer,⦁ ⦁ P.⦁ ⦁ Zhu,⦁ ⦁ H.P.⦁ ⦁ Ostendorff,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Golebiewski,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Tiefenbach,⦁ ⦁ M.A.⦁ ⦁ Peters,⦁ ⦁ B. ⦁ Brill,⦁ ⦁ B.⦁ ⦁ Groner,⦁ ⦁ I.⦁ ⦁ Bach,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Heinzel,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Göttlicher,⦁ ⦁ The⦁ ⦁ histone⦁ ⦁ deacetylase⦁ ⦁ inhibitor ⦁ valproic acid selectively induces proteasomal degradation of HDAC2, EMBO J. 22 ⦁ (2003)⦁ ⦁ 3411⦁ –⦁ 3420.
J.⦁ ⦁ Zhang,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Kan,⦁ ⦁ B.⦁ ⦁ Huang,⦁ ⦁ Z.⦁ ⦁ Hao,⦁ ⦁ T.W.⦁ ⦁ Mak,⦁ ⦁ Q.⦁ ⦁ Zhong,⦁ ⦁ Mule⦁ ⦁ determines⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ apopto- ⦁ tic response to HDAC inhibitors by targeted ubiquitination and destruction of ⦁ HDAC2, Genes Dev. 25 (2011)⦁ ⦁ 2610⦁ –⦁ 2618.
F.⦁ ⦁ Li,⦁ ⦁ E.J.⦁ ⦁ Ackermann,⦁ ⦁ C.F.⦁ ⦁ Bennett,⦁ ⦁ A.L.⦁ ⦁ Rothermel,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Plescia,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Tognin,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Villa,⦁ ⦁ P.C. ⦁ Marchisio, D.C. Altieri, Pleiotropic cell-division defects and apoptosis induced by ⦁ interference with survivin function, Nat. Cell Biol. 1 (1999)⦁ ⦁ 461⦁ –⦁ 466.
F.⦁ ⦁ Li,⦁ ⦁ G.⦁ ⦁ Ambrosini,⦁ ⦁ E.Y.⦁ ⦁ Chu,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Plescia,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Tognin,⦁ ⦁ P.C.⦁ ⦁ Marchisio,⦁ ⦁ D.C.⦁ ⦁ Altieri,⦁ ⦁ Control⦁ ⦁ of ⦁ apoptosis ⦁ and mitotic spindle checkpoint ⦁ by ⦁ survivin, Nature ⦁ 396 ⦁ (1998)⦁ ⦁ 580⦁ –⦁ 584.
S.J.⦁ ⦁ Baker,⦁ ⦁ E.P.⦁ ⦁ Reddy,⦁ ⦁ CDK4:⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ key⦁ ⦁ player⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ cell⦁ ⦁ cycle,⦁ ⦁ development,⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ cancer, ⦁ Genes Cancer 3 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 658⦁ –⦁ 669.
M. Retzer-Lidl, R.M. Schmid, G. Schneider, ⦁ Inhibition ⦁ of CDK4 impairs ⦁ proliferation ⦁ of pancreatic cancer cells and sensitizes towards TRAIL-induced apoptosis via ⦁ downregulation of survivin, Int. J. Cancer 121 (2007)⦁ ⦁ 66⦁ –⦁ 75.
D.⦁ ⦁ Raj,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Liu,⦁ ⦁ G.⦁ ⦁ Samadashwily,⦁ ⦁ F.⦁ ⦁ Li,⦁ ⦁ D.⦁ ⦁ Grossman,⦁ ⦁ Survivin⦁ ⦁ repression⦁ ⦁ by⦁ ⦁ p53,⦁ ⦁ Rb ⦁ and E2F2 in normal human ⦁ melanocytes, ⦁ Carcinogenesis 29 (2008)⦁ ⦁ 194⦁ –⦁ 201.
Y.⦁ ⦁ Jiang,⦁ ⦁ H.I.⦁ ⦁ Saavedra,⦁ ⦁ M.P.⦁ ⦁ Holloway,⦁ ⦁ G.⦁ ⦁ Leone,⦁ ⦁ R.A.⦁ ⦁ Altura,⦁ ⦁ Aberrant⦁ ⦁ regulation⦁ ⦁ of ⦁ survivin by the RB/E2F family of⦁ ⦁ proteins, J. Biol. Chem. 279 (2004) 40511⦁ –⦁ 40520.
A. Suzuki, K. Shiraki, Tumor cell ⦁ “⦁ dead or alive⦁ ”⦁ : caspase and survivin regulate cell ⦁ death,⦁ ⦁ cell⦁ ⦁ cycle⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ cell⦁ ⦁ survival,⦁ ⦁ Histol.⦁ ⦁ Histopathol.⦁ ⦁ 16⦁ ⦁ (2001)⦁ ⦁ 583⦁ –⦁ 593.
A. Suzuki, M. Hayashida, T. Ito, H. Kawano, T. Nakano, M. Miura, K. Akahane, K. ⦁ Shiraki, Survivin initiates cell cycle entry by the competitive interaction with ⦁ Cdk4/p16(INK4a) and Cdk2/cyclin E complex activation, Oncogene 19 (2000) ⦁ 3225⦁ –⦁ 3234.
T. Ito, K. Shiraki, K. Sugimoto, T. Yamanaka, K. Fujikawa, M. Ito, K. Takase, M. ⦁ Moriyama,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Kawano,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Hayashida,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Nakano,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Suzuki,⦁ ⦁ Survivin⦁ ⦁ promotes⦁ ⦁ cell ⦁ proliferation ⦁ in ⦁ human hepatocellular carcinoma, Hepatology ⦁ 31 ⦁ (2000)⦁ ⦁ 1080⦁ –⦁ 1085.
N.A.⦁ ⦁ Warfel,⦁ ⦁ W.S.⦁ ⦁ El-Deiry,⦁ ⦁ p21WAF1⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ tumourigenesis:⦁ ⦁ 20⦁ ⦁ years⦁ ⦁ after,⦁ ⦁ Curr. ⦁ O⦁ pin. Oncol. 25 (2013)⦁ ⦁ 52⦁ –⦁ 58.
S.⦁ ⦁ Fukuda,⦁ ⦁ C.R.⦁ ⦁ Mantel,⦁ ⦁ L.M.⦁ ⦁ Pelus,⦁ ⦁ Survivin⦁ ⦁ regulates⦁ ⦁ hematopoietic⦁ ⦁ progenitor⦁ ⦁ cell ⦁ proliferation through p21WAF1/Cip1-dependent and -independent pathways, ⦁ B⦁ lood 103 (2004)⦁ ⦁ 120⦁ –⦁ 127.
T.⦁ ⦁ Nakahara,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Takeuchi,⦁ ⦁ I.⦁ ⦁ Kinoyama,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Minematsu,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Shirasuna,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Matsuhisa,⦁ ⦁ A. ⦁ K⦁ ita, F. Tominaga, K. Yamanaka, M. Kudoh, M. Sasamata, YM155, a novel ⦁ small-molecule survivin suppressant, induces regression of established human ⦁ h⦁ ormone-refractory prostate tumor xenografts, Cancer Res. 67 (2007) ⦁ 8014⦁ –⦁ 8021.
T. Yamauchi, N. Nakamura, M. Hiramoto, M. Yuri, H. Yokota, M. Naitou, M. ⦁ Takeuchi, K. Yamanaka, A. Kita, T. Nakahara, I. Kinoyama, A. Matsuhisa, N. ⦁ Kaneko, H. Koutoku, M. Sasamata, M. Kobori, M. Katou, S. Tawara, S.⦁ ⦁ Kawabata,
K. Furuichi, Sepantronium bromide (YM155) induces disruption of the ILF3/p54(nrb) complex, which is required for survivin expression, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 425 (2012) 711–716.
N.⦁ Nakamura, T. Yamauchi, M. Hiramoto, M. Yuri, M. Naito, M. Takeuchi, K. ⦁ Yamanaka,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Kita,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Nakahara,⦁ ⦁ I.⦁ ⦁ Kinoyama,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Matsuhisa,⦁ ⦁ N.⦁ ⦁ Kaneko,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Koutoku,
M. Sasamata, H. Yokota, S. Kawabata, K. Furuichi, ILF3/NF110 is a target of YM155, a suppressant of survivin, Mol. Cell. Proteomics 11 (7) (2012) M111.013243.
Q⦁ . Cheng, X. Ling, A. Haller, T. Nakahara, K. Yamanaka, A. Kita, H. Koutoku, M. ⦁ Takeuchi, M.G. Brattain, F. Li, Suppression of survivin promoter activity by ⦁ Y⦁ M155 involves disruption of Sp1-DNA interaction in the survivin core promoter, ⦁ I⦁ nt. J. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 3 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 179⦁ –⦁ 197.
E.⦁ ⦁ Grinstein,⦁ ⦁ F.⦁ ⦁ Jundt,⦁ ⦁ I.⦁ ⦁ Weinert,⦁ ⦁ P.⦁ ⦁ Wernet,⦁ ⦁ H.D.⦁ ⦁ Royer,⦁ ⦁ Sp1⦁ ⦁ as⦁ ⦁ G1⦁ ⦁ cell⦁ ⦁ cycle⦁ ⦁ phase ⦁ s⦁ peci⦁ fi⦁ c ⦁ transcription ⦁ factor in epithelial cells, Oncogene 21 (2002)⦁ ⦁ 1485⦁ –⦁ 1492.
A⦁ .W. Tolcher, A. Mita, L.D. Lewis, C.R. Garrett, E. Till, A.I. Daud, A. Patnaik, K. ⦁ Papadopoulos,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Takimoto,⦁ ⦁ P.⦁ ⦁ Bartels,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Keating,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Antonia,⦁ ⦁ Phase⦁ ⦁ I⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ pharma- ⦁ cokinetic study of YM155, a small-molecule inhibitor of survivin, J. Clin. Oncol. 26 ⦁ (⦁ 2008)⦁ ⦁ 5198⦁ –⦁ 5203.
M.⦁ ⦁ Iwai,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Minematsu,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Narikawa,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Usui,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Kamimura,⦁ ⦁ Involvement⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ human ⦁ organic cation transporter 1 in the hepatic uptake of 1-(2-methoxyethyl)- ⦁ 2-methyl-4,9-dioxo-3-(pyrazin-2-ylmethyl)-4,9-dihydro-1H-napht ho[2,3-d] ⦁ imidaz⦁ olium bromide (YM155 monobromide), a novel, small molecule ⦁ survivin ⦁ s⦁ uppressant, Drug Metab. Dispos. 37 (2009)⦁ ⦁ 1856⦁ –⦁ 1863.
Y.⦁ ⦁ Aoyama,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Nishimura,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Sawamoto,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Satoh,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Katashima,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Nakagawa, ⦁ Pharmacokinetics⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ sepantronium⦁ ⦁ bromide⦁ ⦁ (YM155),⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ small-molecule⦁ ⦁ suppres- ⦁ s⦁ or⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ survivin,⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ Japanese⦁ ⦁ patients⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ advanced⦁ ⦁ solid⦁ ⦁ tumors:⦁ ⦁ dose⦁ ⦁ proportion- ⦁ ality⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ in⦁ fl⦁ uence⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ renal⦁ ⦁ impairment,⦁ ⦁ Cancer⦁ ⦁ Chemother.⦁ ⦁ Pharmacol.⦁ ⦁ 70⦁ ⦁ (2012) ⦁ 3⦁ 73⦁ –⦁ 380.
Y.⦁ ⦁ Aoyama,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Kaibara,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Takada,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Nishimura,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Katashima,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Sawamoto,⦁ ⦁ Popu- ⦁ l⦁ ation⦁ ⦁ pharmacokinetic⦁ ⦁ modeling⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ sepantronium⦁ ⦁ bromide⦁ ⦁ (YM155),⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ small⦁ ⦁ mol- ⦁ ecule⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ suppressant,⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ patients⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ non-small⦁ ⦁ cell⦁ ⦁ lung⦁ ⦁ cancer,⦁ ⦁ hormone ⦁ refractory⦁ ⦁ prostate⦁ ⦁ cancer,⦁ ⦁ or⦁ ⦁ unresectable⦁ ⦁ stage⦁ ⦁ III⦁ ⦁ or⦁ ⦁ IV⦁ ⦁ melanoma,⦁ ⦁ Invest.⦁ ⦁ New ⦁ Drugs 31 (2013)⦁ ⦁ 443⦁ –⦁ 451.
⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Minematsu,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Iwai,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Sugimoto,⦁ ⦁ N.⦁ ⦁ Shirai,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Nakahara,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Usui,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Kamimura, ⦁ Carrier-mediated ⦁ uptake ⦁ of ⦁ 1-(2-methoxyethyl)-2-methyl-4,9-dioxo-3-(pyrazin-2- ⦁ ylmethyl)-4,9-dihydro-1H-napht ho[2,3-d]imidazolium bromide (YM155 ⦁ monobromide), a novel small-molecule survivin suppressant, into human solid ⦁ tumor ⦁ and ⦁ lymphoma cells, Drug Metab. Dispos. ⦁ 37 ⦁ (2009)⦁ ⦁ 619⦁ –⦁ 628.
T.⦁ ⦁ Minematsu,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Iwai,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Umehara,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Usui,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Kamimura,⦁ ⦁ Characterization⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ human ⦁ organic cation transporter 1 (OCT1/SLC22A1)- and OCT2 (SLC22A2)-mediated ⦁ transport of 1-(2-methoxyethyl)-2-methyl-4,9-dioxo-3-(pyrazin-2-ylmethyl)- ⦁ 4,9-dihydro-1H-naphtho[2,3-d]imidazolium bromide (YM155 monobromide), ⦁ a ⦁ novel small molecule survivin suppressant, ⦁ Drug ⦁ Metab. Dispos. ⦁ 38 ⦁ (2010)⦁ ⦁ 1⦁ –4.
M.⦁ ⦁ Iwai,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Minematsu,⦁ ⦁ Q.⦁ ⦁ Li,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Iwatsubo,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Usui,⦁ ⦁ Utility⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ P-glycoprotein⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ or- ⦁ ganic⦁ ⦁ cation⦁ ⦁ transporter⦁ ⦁ 1⦁ ⦁ double-transfected⦁ ⦁ LLC⦁ –⦁ PK1⦁ ⦁ cells⦁ ⦁ for⦁ ⦁ studying⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ inter- ⦁ action⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ YM155⦁ ⦁ monobromide,⦁ ⦁ novel⦁ ⦁ small-molecule⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ suppressant,⦁ ⦁ with ⦁ P-glycoprotein, Drug Metab. Dispos. 39 (2011)⦁ ⦁ 2314⦁ –⦁ 2320.
F.⦁ ⦁ Lamers,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Schild,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Koster,⦁ ⦁ R.⦁ ⦁ Versteeg,⦁ ⦁ H.N.⦁ ⦁ Caron,⦁ ⦁ J.J.⦁ ⦁ Molenaar,⦁ ⦁ Targeted⦁ ⦁ BIRC5 ⦁ silencing using YM155 causes cell death in neuroblastoma cells with low ABCB1 ⦁ expression, Eur. J. Cancer 48 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 763⦁ –⦁ 771.
G.P.⦁ ⦁ Risbridger,⦁ ⦁ I.D.⦁ ⦁ Davis,⦁ ⦁ S.N.⦁ ⦁ Birrell,⦁ ⦁ W.D.⦁ ⦁ Tilley,⦁ ⦁ Breast⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ prostate⦁ ⦁ cancer:⦁ ⦁ more ⦁ similar than different, Nat. Rev. Cancer 10 (2010)⦁ ⦁ 205⦁ –⦁ 212.
A.M.⦁ ⦁ Joshua,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Evans,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Van⦁ ⦁ der⦁ ⦁ Kwast,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Zielenska,⦁ ⦁ A.K.⦁ ⦁ Meeker,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Chinnaiyan,
J.A. Squire, Prostatic preneoplasia and beyond, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1785 (2008) 156–181.
Z.S.⦁ ⦁ Zumsteg,⦁ ⦁ M.J.⦁ ⦁ Zelefsky,⦁ ⦁ Short-term⦁ ⦁ androgen⦁ ⦁ deprivation⦁ ⦁ therapy⦁ ⦁ for⦁ ⦁ patients ⦁ with intermediate-risk prostate cancer undergoing dose-escalated⦁ ⦁ radiotherapy: ⦁ the standard of care? Lancet Oncol. 13 (2012)⦁ ⦁ e259⦁ –⦁ e269.
A. van ⦁ Bokhoven, ⦁ M. ⦁ Varella-Garcia, ⦁ C. ⦁ Korch, ⦁ D. ⦁ Hessels, ⦁ G.J. Miller, ⦁ Widely ⦁ used prostate carcinoma cell lines share common origins, Prostate 47 ⦁ (2001) ⦁ 36⦁ –⦁ 51.
Y.⦁ ⦁ Murakami,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Matsuya,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Kita,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Yamanaka,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Noda,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Mitsuoka,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Nakahara,
S. Miyoshi, S. Nishimura, Radiosynthesis, biodistribution and imaging of [11C] YM155, a novel survivin suppressant, in a human prostate tumor-xenograft mouse model, Nucl. Med. Biol. 40 (2013) 221–226.
Q.⦁ ⦁ Wang,⦁ ⦁ Z.⦁ ⦁ Chen,⦁ ⦁ X.⦁ ⦁ Diao,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Huang,⦁ ⦁ Induction⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ autophagy-dependent⦁ ⦁ apoptosis ⦁ by the survivin suppressant YM155 in prostate cancer cells, Cancer Lett. 302 ⦁ (2011)⦁ ⦁ 29⦁ –⦁ 36.
J.W.⦁ ⦁ Tyner,⦁ ⦁ A.M.⦁ ⦁ Jemal,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Thayer,⦁ ⦁ B.J.⦁ ⦁ Druker,⦁ ⦁ B.H.⦁ ⦁ Chang,⦁ ⦁ Targeting⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ and ⦁ p53 in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia, Leukemia 26 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 623⦁ –⦁ 632.
M.⦁ ⦁ Baudis,⦁ ⦁ V.⦁ ⦁ Prima,⦁ ⦁ Y.H.⦁ ⦁ Tung,⦁ ⦁ S.P.⦁ ⦁ Hunger,⦁ ⦁ ABCB1⦁ ⦁ over-expression⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ drug-ef⦁ fl⦁ ux ⦁ in acute lymphoblastic leukemia cell lines with t(17;19) and E2A⦁ –⦁ HLF expression, ⦁ Pediatr. Blood Cancer 47 (2006)⦁ ⦁ 757⦁ –⦁ 764.
M.⦁ ⦁ Okuya,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Kurosawa,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Kikuchi,⦁ ⦁ Y.⦁ ⦁ Furukawa,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Matsui,⦁ ⦁ D.⦁ ⦁ Aki,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Matsunaga,⦁ ⦁ T. ⦁ Inukai,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Goto,⦁ ⦁ R.A.⦁ ⦁ Altura,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Sugita,⦁ ⦁ O.⦁ ⦁ Arisaka,⦁ ⦁ A.T.⦁ ⦁ Look,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Inaba,⦁ ⦁ Up-regulation ⦁ of survivin by the E2A⦁ –⦁ HLF chimera is indispensable for the survival of ⦁ t(17;19)-positive ⦁ leukemia cells, J. Biol. Chem. 285 (2010)⦁ ⦁ 1850⦁ –⦁ 1860.
M. Bernasconi, S. Ueda, P. Krukowski, B.C. Bornhauser, K. Ladell, M. Dorner, J.A. ⦁ Sigrist,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Campidelli,⦁ ⦁ R.⦁ ⦁ Aslandogmus,⦁ ⦁ D.⦁ ⦁ Alessi,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Berger,⦁ ⦁ S.A.⦁ ⦁ Pileri,⦁ ⦁ R.F.⦁ ⦁ Speck,
D. Nadal, Early gene expression changes by Epstein–Barr virus infection of B-cells indicate CDKs and survivin as therapeutic targets for post-transplant lymphopro- liferative diseases, Int. J. Cancer 133 (10) (2013) 2341–2350.
C.C.⦁ ⦁ Chang,⦁ ⦁ J.D.⦁ ⦁ Heller,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Kuo,⦁ ⦁ R.C.⦁ ⦁ Huang,⦁ ⦁ Tetra-O-methyl⦁ ⦁ nordihydroguaiaretic⦁ ⦁ acid ⦁ induces growth arrest and cellular apoptosis by inhibiting Cdc2 and survivin ex- ⦁ pression, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 101 (2004)⦁ ⦁ 13239⦁ –⦁ 13244.
R.C.⦁ ⦁ Huang,⦁ ⦁ C.C.⦁ ⦁ Chang,⦁ ⦁ D.⦁ ⦁ Mold,⦁ ⦁ Survivin-dependent⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ -independent⦁ ⦁ pathways ⦁ and the induction of cancer cell death by tetra-O-methyl nordihydroguaiaretic ⦁ acid, Semin. Oncol. 33 (2006)⦁ ⦁ 479⦁ –⦁ 485.
Y. Sun, N.J. Giacalone, B. Lu, Terameprocol (tetra-O-methyl nordihydroguaiaretic ⦁ acid), ⦁ an ⦁ inhibitor ⦁ of ⦁ Sp1-mediated survivin transcription, ⦁ induces ⦁ radiosensitization ⦁ in ⦁ non-small ⦁ cell ⦁ lung ⦁ carcinoma, ⦁ J. ⦁ Thorac. Oncol. ⦁ 6 ⦁ (2011) 8⦁ –⦁ 14.
C.G. Leung, ⦁ Y. ⦁ Xu, ⦁ B. ⦁ Mularski, ⦁ H. ⦁ Liu, ⦁ S. ⦁ Gurbuxani, ⦁ J.D. ⦁ Crispino, Require- ⦁ ments ⦁ for ⦁ survivin ⦁ in ⦁ terminal differentiation ⦁ of erythroid cells and ⦁ mainte- ⦁ nance ⦁ of ⦁ hematopoietic ⦁ stem and ⦁ progenitor cells, ⦁ J. ⦁ Exp. ⦁ Med. ⦁ 204 ⦁ (2007) ⦁ 1603⦁ –⦁ 1611.
R.C. Gallo, Research and discovery of the ⦁ fi⦁ rst human cancer virus, HTLV-1, Best ⦁ Pract. Res. Clin. Haematol. 24 (2011)⦁ ⦁ 559⦁ –⦁ 565.
J.⦁ ⦁ Chen,⦁ ⦁ C.A.⦁ ⦁ Pise-Masison,⦁ ⦁ J.H.⦁ ⦁ Shih,⦁ ⦁ J.C.⦁ ⦁ Morris,⦁ ⦁ J.E.⦁ ⦁ Janik,⦁ ⦁ K.C.⦁ ⦁ Conlon,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Keating,
T.A. Waldmann, Markedly additive antitumor activity with the combination of a selective survivin suppressant YM155 and alemtuzumab in adult T-cell leukemia, Blood 121 (2013) 2029–2037.
N. Mori, Y. Yamada, T. Hata, S. Ikeda, Y. Yamasaki, M. Tomonaga, N. Yamamoto, ⦁ Expression of survivin in HTLV-I-infected T-cell lines and primary ATL cells, ⦁ Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 282 (2001)⦁ ⦁ 1110⦁ –⦁ 1113.
L.⦁ ⦁ Jiang,⦁ ⦁ C.M.⦁ ⦁ Yuan,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Hubacheck,⦁ ⦁ J.E.⦁ ⦁ Janik,⦁ ⦁ W.⦁ ⦁ Wilson,⦁ ⦁ J.C.⦁ ⦁ Morris,⦁ ⦁ G.A.⦁ ⦁ Jasper,⦁ ⦁ M. ⦁ Stetler-Stevenson, Variable CD52 expression in mature T cell and NK cell ⦁ malignancies: implications for alemtuzumab therapy, Br. J. Haematol. 145 (2009) ⦁ 173⦁ –⦁ 179.
H. Kawakami, M. Tomita, T. Matsuda, T. Ohta, Y. Tanaka, M. Fujii, M. Hatano, T. ⦁ Tokuhisa, N. Mori, Transcriptional activation of survivin through the NF-kappaB ⦁ pathway by human T-cell leukemia virus type I tax, Int. J. Cancer 115 (2005) ⦁ 967⦁ –⦁ 974.
P.⦁ ⦁ Banerjee,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Sieburg,⦁ ⦁ E.⦁ ⦁ Samuelson,⦁ ⦁ G.⦁ ⦁ Feuer,⦁ ⦁ Human⦁ ⦁ T-cell⦁ ⦁ lymphotropic ⦁ virus type ⦁ 1 ⦁ infection ⦁ of ⦁ CD34+ ⦁ hematopoietic progenitor ⦁ cells ⦁ induces cell ⦁ cycle arrest ⦁ by ⦁ modulation ⦁ of ⦁ p21(cip1/waf1) and survivin, Stem Cells ⦁ 26 ⦁ (2008)⦁ ⦁ 3047⦁ –⦁ 3058.
S.J.⦁ ⦁ Jeong,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Radonovich,⦁ ⦁ J.N.⦁ ⦁ Brady,⦁ ⦁ C.A.⦁ ⦁ Pise-Masison,⦁ ⦁ HTLV-I⦁ ⦁ Tax⦁ ⦁ induces⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ novel ⦁ interaction⦁ ⦁ between⦁ ⦁ p65/RelA⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ p53⦁ ⦁ that⦁ ⦁ results⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ inhibition⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ p53⦁ ⦁ transcrip- ⦁ tional ⦁ activity, Blood 104 (2004)⦁ ⦁ 1490⦁ –⦁ 1497.

S⦁ .B. Ng, V. Selvarajan, G. Huang, J. Zhou, A.L. Feldman, M. Law, Y.L. Kwong, N. ⦁ Shimizu, Y. Kagami, K. Aozasa, M. Salto-Tellez, W.J. Chng, Activated oncogenic ⦁ pathways and therapeutic targets in extranodal nasal-type NK/T cell lymphoma ⦁ revealed⦁ ⦁ by⦁ ⦁ gene⦁ ⦁ expression⦁ ⦁ pro⦁ fi⦁ ling,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Pathol.⦁ ⦁ 223⦁ ⦁ (2011)⦁ ⦁ 496⦁ –⦁ 510.
A.⦁ ⦁ Kita,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Nakahara,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Yamanaka,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Nakano,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Nakata,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Mori,⦁ ⦁ N.⦁ ⦁ Kaneko,⦁ ⦁ H. ⦁ Koutoku,⦁ ⦁ N.⦁ ⦁ Izumisawa,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Sasamata,⦁ ⦁ Antitumor⦁ ⦁ effects⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ YM155,⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ novel⦁ ⦁ survivin ⦁ suppressant, against human aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Leuk. Res. 35 ⦁ (2011)⦁ ⦁ 787⦁ –⦁ 792.
A.⦁ ⦁ K⦁ i⦁ t⦁ a⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ K⦁ .⦁ ⦁ M⦁ i⦁ t⦁ s⦁ u⦁ o⦁ k⦁ a⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ N⦁ .⦁ ⦁ K⦁ a⦁ n⦁ e⦁ k⦁ o⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ M⦁ .⦁ ⦁ N⦁ a⦁ k⦁ a⦁ t⦁ a,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Y⦁ a⦁ m⦁ a⦁ n⦁ a⦁ k⦁ a⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ M⦁ .⦁ ⦁ J⦁ i⦁ t⦁ s⦁ u⦁ o⦁ k⦁ a⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ M⦁ i⦁ y⦁ o⦁ s⦁ h⦁ i⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ A. ⦁ Noda, M. Mori, T. Nakahara, M. Sasamata, Sepantronium bromide (YM155) ⦁ enhances response of human B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma to rituximab, ⦁ J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 343 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 178⦁ –⦁ 183.
M.⦁ ⦁ Gupta,⦁ ⦁ J.J.⦁ ⦁ Han,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Stenson,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Wellik,⦁ ⦁ T.E.⦁ ⦁ Witzig,⦁ ⦁ Regulation⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ STAT3⦁ ⦁ by⦁ ⦁ histone ⦁ deacetylase-3 in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: implications for therapy, Leukemia ⦁ 26 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 1356⦁ –⦁ 1364.
N.⦁ ⦁ Kaneko,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Kita,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Yamanaka,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Mori,⦁ ⦁ Combination⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ YM155,⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ sup- ⦁ pressant⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ STAT3⦁ ⦁ inhibitor:⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ new⦁ ⦁ strategy⦁ ⦁ to⦁ ⦁ treat⦁ ⦁ diffuse⦁ ⦁ large⦁ ⦁ B-cell⦁ ⦁ lym- ⦁ phoma, Leuk. Res. 37 (9) (2013)⦁ ⦁ 1156⦁ –⦁ 1161.
J.R. Caceres-Cortes, A potent anti-carcinoma and anti-acute myeloblastic leukemia ⦁ agent, AG490, Anticancer Agents Med Chem. 8 (2008)⦁ ⦁ 717⦁ –⦁ 722.
H. Song, R. Wang, S. Wang, J. Lin, A low-molecular-weight compound discovered ⦁ through virtual database screening inhibits Stat3 function in breast cancer cells, ⦁ Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 102 (2005)⦁ ⦁ 4700⦁ –⦁ 4705.
O.H.⦁ ⦁ Krämer,⦁ ⦁ S.K.⦁ ⦁ Knauer,⦁ ⦁ G.⦁ ⦁ Greiner,⦁ ⦁ E.⦁ ⦁ Jandt,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Reichardt,⦁ ⦁ K.H.⦁ ⦁ Gührs,⦁ ⦁ R.H.⦁ ⦁ Stauber,
F.D. Böhmer, T. Heinzel, A phosphorylation–acetylation switch regulates STAT1 sig- naling, Genes Dev. 23 (2009) 223–235.
L.L. Marotta, K. Polyak, Unraveling the complexity of basal-like breast cancer, ⦁ Oncotarget 2 (2011)⦁ ⦁ 588⦁ –⦁ 589.
J.⦁ ⦁ Crown,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ O⦁ ‘⦁ Shaughnessy,⦁ ⦁ G.⦁ ⦁ Gullo,⦁ ⦁ Emerging⦁ ⦁ targeted⦁ ⦁ therapies⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ triple-negative ⦁ breast cancer, Ann. Oncol. 23 (Suppl. 6) (2012)⦁ ⦁ vi56⦁ –⦁ vi65.
J.⦁ ⦁ Song,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Su,⦁ ⦁ Y.Y.⦁ ⦁ Zhou,⦁ ⦁ L.L.⦁ ⦁ Guo,⦁ ⦁ Prognostic⦁ ⦁ value⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ expression⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ breast ⦁ cancer patients: a ⦁ meta-analysis, ⦁ Tumour Biol. 34 (2013)⦁ ⦁ 2053⦁ –⦁ 2062.
K.⦁ ⦁ Yamanaka,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Nakata,⦁ ⦁ N.⦁ ⦁ Kaneko,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Fushiki,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Kita,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Nakahara,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Koutoku,⦁ ⦁ M. ⦁ Sasamata, YM155, a selective survivin suppressant, inhibits tumor spread and pro- ⦁ longs survival in a spontaneous metastatic model of human triple negative breast ⦁ cancer, Int. J. Oncol. 39 (2011)⦁ ⦁ 569⦁ –⦁ 575.
T.⦁ ⦁ Nakahara,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Kita,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Yamanaka,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Mori,⦁ ⦁ N.⦁ ⦁ Amino,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Takeuchi,⦁ ⦁ F.⦁ ⦁ Tominaga,⦁ ⦁ I. ⦁ Kinoyama,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Matsuhisa,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Kudou,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Sasamata,⦁ ⦁ Broad⦁ ⦁ spectrum⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ potent⦁ ⦁ anti- ⦁ tumor activities of YM155, a novel small-molecule survivin ⦁ suppressant, ⦁ in a wide ⦁ variety of human cancer cell lines and xenograft models, Cancer Sci. 102 (2011) ⦁ 614⦁ –⦁ 621.
K.⦁ ⦁ Polyak,⦁ ⦁ Breast⦁ ⦁ cancer⦁ ⦁ gene⦁ ⦁ discovery,⦁ ⦁ Expert⦁ ⦁ Rev.⦁ ⦁ Mol.⦁ ⦁ Med.⦁ ⦁ 4⦁ ⦁ (2002)⦁ ⦁ 1⦁ –⦁ 18.
K.⦁ ⦁ Dallaglio,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Marconi,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Pincelli,⦁ ⦁ Survivin:⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ dual⦁ ⦁ player⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ healthy⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ diseased ⦁ skin, J. Invest. Dermatol. 132 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 18⦁ –⦁ 27.
J⦁ .A.⦁ ⦁ McKenzie,⦁ ⦁ D.⦁ ⦁ Grossman,⦁ ⦁ Role⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ apoptotic⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ mitotic⦁ ⦁ regulator⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ in ⦁ m⦁ elanoma, ⦁ Anticancer Res 32 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 397⦁ –⦁ 404.
K. Yamanaka, T. Nakahara, T. Yamauchi, A. Kita, M. Takeuchi, F. Kiyonaga, N. ⦁ Kanek⦁ o, M. Sasamata, Antitumor activity of YM155, a selective small-molecule ⦁ survivin suppressant, alone and in combination with docetaxel in human malig- ⦁ n⦁ ant melanoma models, Clin. Cancer Res. 17 (2011)⦁ ⦁ 5423⦁ –⦁ 5431.
I.⦁ Erovic, B.M. Erovic, Merkel cell carcinoma: the past, the present, and the future, ⦁ J.⦁ Skin Cancer 2013 (2013)⦁ ⦁ 929364.
N.J. Miller, S. Bhatia, U. Parvathaneni, J.G. Iyer, P. Nghiem, Emerging and ⦁ mecha⦁ nism-based therapies for recurrent or metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma, ⦁ C⦁ urr. Treat. Options Oncol. 14 (2013)⦁ ⦁ 249⦁ –⦁ 263.
R⦁ .⦁ ⦁ Arora,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Shuda,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Guasta⦁ fi⦁ erro,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Feng,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Toptan,⦁ ⦁ Y.⦁ ⦁ Tolstov,⦁ ⦁ D.⦁ ⦁ Normolle,⦁ ⦁ L.L. ⦁ Vollmer,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Vogt,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Domling,⦁ ⦁ J.L.⦁ ⦁ Brodsky,⦁ ⦁ Y.⦁ ⦁ Chang,⦁ ⦁ P.S.⦁ ⦁ Moore,⦁ ⦁ Survivin⦁ ⦁ is⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ ther- ⦁ a⦁ peutic⦁ ⦁ target⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ merkel⦁ ⦁ cell⦁ ⦁ carcinoma,⦁ ⦁ Sci.⦁ ⦁ Transl.⦁ ⦁ Med.⦁ ⦁ 4⦁ ⦁ (2012)⦁ ⦁ 133ra156.
D.⦁ Schrama, S. Hesbacher, J.C. Becker, R. Houben, Survivin downregulation is not ⦁ required for T antigen ⦁ knockdown ⦁ mediated cell growth inhibition in MCV infect- ⦁ ed⦁ merkel cell carcinoma cells, Int. J. Cancer 132⦁ ⦁ (2013) 2980⦁ –⦁ 2982.
F.⦁ ⦁ Lamers,⦁ ⦁ I.⦁ ⦁ van⦁ ⦁ der⦁ ⦁ Ploeg,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Schild,⦁ ⦁ M.E.⦁ ⦁ Ebus,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Koster,⦁ ⦁ B.R.⦁ ⦁ Hansen,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Koch,⦁ ⦁ R. ⦁ Versteeg,⦁ ⦁ H.N.⦁ ⦁ Caron,⦁ ⦁ J.J.⦁ ⦁ Molenaar,⦁ ⦁ Knockdown⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ (BIRC5)⦁ ⦁ causes⦁ ⦁ apopto- ⦁ sis in neuroblastoma via mitotic catastrophe, Endocr. Relat. Cancer 18 (2011) ⦁ 6⦁ 57⦁ –⦁ 668.
F.R.⦁ ⦁ Lima,⦁ ⦁ S.A.⦁ ⦁ Kahn,⦁ ⦁ R.C.⦁ ⦁ Soletti,⦁ ⦁ D.⦁ ⦁ Biasoli,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Alves,⦁ ⦁ A.C.⦁ ⦁ da⦁ ⦁ Fonseca,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Garcia,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Romao,
J. Brito, R. Holanda-Afonso, J. Faria, H. Borges, V. Moura-Neto, Glioblastoma: therapeu- tic challenges, what lies ahead, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1826 (2012) 338–349.
P.C.⦁ ⦁ Lai,⦁ ⦁ S.H.⦁ ⦁ Chen,⦁ ⦁ S.H.⦁ ⦁ Yang,⦁ ⦁ C.C.⦁ ⦁ Cheng,⦁ ⦁ T.H.⦁ ⦁ Chiu,⦁ ⦁ Y.T.⦁ ⦁ Huang,⦁ ⦁ Novel⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ inhib- ⦁ itor⦁ ⦁ YM155⦁ ⦁ elicits⦁ ⦁ cytotoxicity⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ glioblastoma⦁ ⦁ cell⦁ ⦁ lines⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ normal⦁ ⦁ or⦁ ⦁ de⦁ fi⦁ ciency ⦁ D⦁ NA-dependent⦁ ⦁ protein⦁ ⦁ kinase⦁ ⦁ activity,⦁ ⦁ Pediatr.⦁ ⦁ Neonatol.⦁ ⦁ 53⦁ ⦁ (2012)⦁ ⦁ 199⦁ –⦁ 204.
O.⦁ ⦁ L⦁ a⦁ n⦁ v⦁ i⦁ n⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ S⦁ .⦁ ⦁ M⦁ o⦁ n⦁ f⦁ e⦁ r⦁ r⦁ a⦁ n⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ C⦁ .⦁ ⦁ D⦁ e⦁ l⦁ m⦁ a⦁ s,⦁ ⦁ B.⦁ ⦁ C⦁ o⦁ u⦁ d⦁ e⦁ r⦁ c⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ T⦁ o⦁ u⦁ l⦁ a⦁ s⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ E⦁ .⦁ ⦁ C⦁ o⦁ h⦁ e⦁ n⦁ -⦁ J⦁ o⦁ n⦁ a⦁ t⦁ h⦁ a⦁ n⦁ -⦁ M⦁ o⦁ y⦁ a⦁ l, ⦁ Radiation-induced⦁ ⦁ mitotic⦁ ⦁ cell⦁ ⦁ death⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ glioblastoma⦁ ⦁ radioresistance:⦁ ⦁ A⦁ ⦁ new⦁ ⦁ reg- ⦁ ul⦁ ating pathway controlled by integrin-linked kinase, hypoxia-inducible factor ⦁ 1⦁ alpha⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ U87⦁ ⦁ cells,⦁ ⦁ Eur.⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Cancer⦁ ⦁ 49⦁ ⦁ (13)⦁ ⦁ (2013)⦁ ⦁ 2884⦁ –⦁ 2891.
C.W. Anderson, M.J. Allalunis-Turner, Human TP53 from the malignant ⦁ glioma-derived cell lines M059J and M059K has a cancer-associated mutation in ⦁ e⦁ xon 8, Radiat. Res. 154 (2000)⦁ ⦁ 473⦁ –⦁ 476.
P. Virsik-Köpp, M. Rave-Fränk, H. Hofman-Hüther, H. Schmidberger, Role of ⦁ DNA-PK in the process of aberration formation as studied in irradiated human ⦁ g⦁ lioblastoma cell lines M059K and M059J, Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 79 (2003)⦁ ⦁ 61⦁ –⦁ 68.
M.⦁ Christmann, B. Kaina, Transcriptional regulation of human DNA repair genes ⦁ following genotoxic stress: trigger mechanisms, inducible responses and genotoxic ⦁ adaptation, Nucleic Acids Res. 41 (2013)⦁ ⦁ 8403⦁ –⦁ 8420.
S⦁ .⦁ J⦁ .⦁ ⦁ C⦁ o⦁ l⦁ li⦁ s⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ T⦁ .⦁ L⦁ .⦁ ⦁ D⦁ e⦁ W⦁ ee⦁ s⦁ e⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ P⦁ .⦁ A⦁ .⦁ ⦁ J⦁ e⦁ gg⦁ o⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ A⦁ .⦁ R⦁ .⦁ ⦁ P⦁ a⦁ r⦁ k⦁ e⦁ r,⦁ ⦁ T⦁ h⦁ e⦁ ⦁ li⦁ f⦁ e⦁ ⦁ a⦁ n⦁ d⦁ ⦁ d⦁ e⦁ a⦁ t⦁ h⦁ ⦁ o⦁ f⦁ ⦁ D⦁ N⦁ A⦁ -⦁ P⦁ K, ⦁ Oncogene 24 (2005)⦁ ⦁ 949⦁ –⦁ 961.
⦁ L.-H.⦁ ⦁ Lin,⦁ ⦁ H.-L.⦁ ⦁ Chan,⦁ ⦁ H.-C.⦁ ⦁ Chou,⦁ ⦁ DNA-dependent⦁ ⦁ protein⦁ ⦁ kinase⦁ ⦁ regulated⦁ ⦁ glioblas- ⦁ toma⦁ ⦁ survival⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ doxorubicin-induced⦁ ⦁ cytotoxicity,⦁ ⦁ Genomic⦁ ⦁ Med.⦁ ⦁ Biomark.⦁ ⦁ Health ⦁ Sci. 4 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 54⦁ –⦁ 56.
B.⦁ ⦁ Kumar,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Yadav,⦁ ⦁ J.C.⦁ ⦁ Lang,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Cipolla,⦁ ⦁ A.C.⦁ ⦁ Schmitt,⦁ ⦁ N.⦁ ⦁ Arradaza,⦁ ⦁ T.N.⦁ ⦁ Teknos,⦁ ⦁ P. ⦁ Kumar, YM155 reverses cisplatin resistance in head and neck cancer by decreasing ⦁ cytoplasmic⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ levels,⦁ ⦁ Mol.⦁ ⦁ Cancer⦁ ⦁ Ther.⦁ ⦁ 11⦁ ⦁ (9)⦁ ⦁ (2012)⦁ ⦁ 1988⦁ –⦁ 1998.
Y.W.⦁ ⦁ Poh,⦁ ⦁ S.Y.⦁ ⦁ Gan,⦁ ⦁ E.L.⦁ ⦁ Tan,⦁ ⦁ Effects⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ IL-6,⦁ ⦁ IL-10⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ TGF-beta⦁ ⦁ on⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ expression⦁ ⦁ of ⦁ survivin and apoptosis in nasopharyngeal carcinoma TW01 cells, Exp. Oncol. 34 ⦁ (2012)⦁ ⦁ 85⦁ –⦁ 89.
L.⦁ ⦁ Guo,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Tang,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Yang,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Xiao,⦁ ⦁ A.M.⦁ ⦁ Bode,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Li,⦁ ⦁ Z.⦁ ⦁ Dong,⦁ ⦁ Y.⦁ ⦁ Cao,⦁ ⦁ Epstein⦁ –⦁ Barr⦁ ⦁ virus ⦁ oncoprotein ⦁ LMP1 ⦁ mediates survivin upregulation ⦁ by ⦁ p53 contributing ⦁ to G1/S cell ⦁ cycle⦁ ⦁ progression⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ nasopharyngeal⦁ ⦁ carcinoma,⦁ ⦁ Int.⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Mol.⦁ ⦁ Med.⦁ ⦁ 29⦁ ⦁ (2012)⦁ ⦁ 574⦁ –⦁ 580.
J.E.⦁ ⦁ Bauman,⦁ ⦁ M.C.⦁ ⦁ Austin,⦁ ⦁ R.⦁ ⦁ Schmidt,⦁ ⦁ B.F.⦁ ⦁ Kurland,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Vaezi,⦁ ⦁ D.N.⦁ ⦁ Hayes,⦁ ⦁ E.⦁ ⦁ Mendez,
U. Parvathaneni, X. Chai, S. Sampath, R.G. Martins, ERCC1 is a prognostic biomarker in locally advanced head and neck cancer: results from a randomised, phase II trial, Br. J. Cancer 109 (2013) 2096–2105.
D.⦁ ⦁ Katz,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Lazar,⦁ ⦁ D.⦁ ⦁ Lev,⦁ ⦁ Malignant⦁ ⦁ peripheral⦁ ⦁ nerve⦁ ⦁ sheath⦁ ⦁ tumour⦁ ⦁ (MPNST):⦁ ⦁ the ⦁ clinical implications of cellular signalling pathways, Expert Rev. Mol. Med. 11 ⦁ (2009)⦁ ⦁ e30.
S⦁ .⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ L⦁ e⦁ e⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ H⦁ .⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ P⦁ a⦁ r⦁ k⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ Y⦁ .⦁ H⦁ .⦁ ⦁ K⦁ i⦁ m⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ B⦁ .⦁ Y⦁ .⦁ ⦁ K⦁ i⦁ m⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ H⦁ .⦁ S⦁ .⦁ ⦁ J⦁ i⦁ n⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ H⦁ .⦁ J⦁ .⦁ ⦁ K⦁ i⦁ m⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ J⦁ .⦁ H⦁ .⦁ ⦁ H⦁ a⦁ n⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ H⦁ .⦁ ⦁ Y⦁ i⦁ m⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ S⦁ .⦁ Y⦁ .⦁ ⦁ J⦁ e⦁ o⦁ n⦁ g⦁ , ⦁ Inhibition of Bcl-xL by ABT-737 enhances chemotherapy sensitivity in neuro⦁ fi⦁ bro- ⦁ matosis type 1-associated malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor cells, Int. J. ⦁ Mol. Med. 30 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 443⦁ –⦁ 450.
M.P.⦁ ⦁ Ghadimi,⦁ ⦁ E.D.⦁ ⦁ Young,⦁ ⦁ R.⦁ ⦁ Belousov,⦁ ⦁ Y.⦁ ⦁ Zhang,⦁ ⦁ G.⦁ ⦁ Lopez,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Lusby,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Kivlin,⦁ ⦁ E.G. ⦁ Demicco,⦁ ⦁ C.J.⦁ ⦁ Creighton,⦁ ⦁ A.J.⦁ ⦁ Lazar,⦁ ⦁ R.E.⦁ ⦁ Pollock,⦁ ⦁ D.⦁ ⦁ Lev,⦁ ⦁ Survivin⦁ ⦁ is⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ viable⦁ ⦁ target ⦁ for the treatment of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors, Clin. Cancer Res. ⦁ 18 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 2545⦁ –⦁ 2557.
P.⦁ ⦁ Hingorani,⦁ ⦁ P.⦁ ⦁ Dickman,⦁ ⦁ P.⦁ ⦁ Garcia-Filion,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ White-Collins,⦁ ⦁ E.A.⦁ ⦁ Kolb,⦁ ⦁ D.O.⦁ ⦁ Azorsa, ⦁ BIRC5 expression is a poor prognostic marker in Ewing sarcoma, Pediatr. ⦁ Blood ⦁ Cancer 60 (2013)⦁ ⦁ 35⦁ –⦁ 40.
J.⦁ ⦁ Potratz,⦁ ⦁ U.⦁ ⦁ Dirksen,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Jürgens,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Craft,⦁ ⦁ Ewing⦁ ⦁ sarcoma:⦁ ⦁ clinical⦁ ⦁ state-of-the-art, ⦁ Pediatr. Hematol. Oncol. 29 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 1⦁ –⦁ 11.
A.O. Karosas, Ewing⦁ ‘⦁ s sarcoma, Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 67 (2010)⦁ ⦁ 1599⦁ –⦁ 1605.
J. Sonnemann, C.D. Palani, S. Wittig, S. Becker, F. Eichhorn, A. Voigt, J.F. Beck, ⦁ Anticancer effects of the p53 activator nutlin-3 in Ewing⦁ ‘⦁ s sarcoma cells, Eur. ⦁ J. ⦁ Cancer 47 (2011)⦁ ⦁ 1432⦁ –⦁ 1441.
H. Cao, D. Le, L.X. Yang, Current status in chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic ⦁ adenocarcinoma, Anticancer Res 33 (2013)⦁ ⦁ 1785⦁ –⦁ 1791.
D.H.⦁ ⦁ Yoon,⦁ ⦁ J.S.⦁ ⦁ Shin,⦁ ⦁ D.H.⦁ ⦁ Jin,⦁ ⦁ S.W.⦁ ⦁ Hong,⦁ ⦁ K.A.⦁ ⦁ Jung,⦁ ⦁ S.M.⦁ ⦁ Kim,⦁ ⦁ Y.S.⦁ ⦁ Hong,⦁ ⦁ K.P.⦁ ⦁ Kim,⦁ ⦁ J.L. ⦁ Lee, C. Suh, J.S. Lee, T.W. Kim, The survivin suppressant YM155 potentiates ⦁ chemosensitivity to Gemcitabine in the human pancreatic cancer cell line ⦁ MiaPaCa-2, ⦁ Anticancer Res 32 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 1681⦁ –⦁ 1688.
C.P.⦁ ⦁ Ye,⦁ ⦁ C.Z.⦁ ⦁ Qiu,⦁ ⦁ Z.X.⦁ ⦁ Huang,⦁ ⦁ Q.C.⦁ ⦁ Su,⦁ ⦁ W.⦁ ⦁ Zhuang,⦁ ⦁ R.L.⦁ ⦁ Wu,⦁ ⦁ X.F.⦁ ⦁ Li,⦁ ⦁ Relationship⦁ ⦁ be- ⦁ tween survivin expression and recurrence, and prognosis in hepatocellular carci- ⦁ noma, World J. Gastroenterol. 13 (2007)⦁ ⦁ 6264⦁ –⦁ 6268.
N. Charette, C. De Saeger, Y. Horsmans, I. Leclercq, P. Starkel, Salirasib⦁ ⦁ sensitizes ⦁ hepatocarcinoma cells to TRAIL-induced apoptosis through DR5 and ⦁ survivin-dependent ⦁ mechanisms, ⦁ Cell Death Dis. 4 (2013)⦁ ⦁ e471.
X. Zhao, O.O. Ogunwobi, C. Liu, Survivin inhibition is critical for Bcl-2 ⦁ inhibitor-induced apoptosis in hepatocellular carcinoma cells, PLoS One 6 (2011) ⦁ e21980.
L.⦁ ⦁ Min,⦁ ⦁ Y.⦁ ⦁ Ji,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Bakiri,⦁ ⦁ Z.⦁ ⦁ Qiu,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Cen,⦁ ⦁ X.⦁ ⦁ Chen,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Chen,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Scheuch,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Zheng,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Qin,⦁ ⦁ K. ⦁ Zatloukal,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Hui,⦁ ⦁ E.F.⦁ ⦁ Wagner,⦁ ⦁ Liver⦁ ⦁ cancer⦁ ⦁ initiation⦁ ⦁ is⦁ ⦁ controlled⦁ ⦁ by⦁ ⦁ AP-1⦁ ⦁ through ⦁ SIRT6-dependent ⦁ inhibition of survivin, Nat. Cell Biol. 14 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 1203⦁ –⦁ 1211.
J.⦁ ⦁ Hartkamp,⦁ ⦁ S.G.⦁ ⦁ Roberts,⦁ ⦁ HtrA2,⦁ ⦁ taming⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ oncogenic⦁ ⦁ activities⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ WT1,⦁ ⦁ Cell⦁ ⦁ Cycle ⦁ 9 (2010)⦁ ⦁ 2508⦁ –⦁ 2514.
Y.F.⦁ ⦁ Tao,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Lu,⦁ ⦁ X.J.⦁ ⦁ Du,⦁ ⦁ L.C.⦁ ⦁ Sun,⦁ ⦁ X.⦁ ⦁ Zhao,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Peng,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Cao,⦁ ⦁ P.F.⦁ ⦁ Xiao,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Pang,⦁ ⦁ D.⦁ ⦁ Wu,⦁ ⦁ N. ⦁ Wang,⦁ ⦁ X.⦁ ⦁ Feng,⦁ ⦁ Y.H.⦁ ⦁ Li,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Ni,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Wang,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Pan,⦁ ⦁ Survivin⦁ ⦁ selective⦁ ⦁ inhibitor⦁ ⦁ YM155⦁ ⦁ in- ⦁ duce⦁ ⦁ apoptosis⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ SK-NEP-1⦁ ⦁ Wilms⦁ ⦁ tumor⦁ ⦁ cells,⦁ ⦁ BMC⦁ ⦁ Cancer⦁ ⦁ 12⦁ ⦁ (2012)⦁ ⦁ 619.
M.⦁ ⦁ Akhtar,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Gallagher,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Rohan,⦁ ⦁ Survivin:⦁ ⦁ role⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ diagnosis,⦁ ⦁ prognosis,⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ treat- ⦁ ment of bladder cancer, Adv Anat Pathol 13 (2006)⦁ ⦁ 122⦁ –⦁ 126.
A. Custodio, M. Mendez, M. Provencio, Targeted therapies for advanced ⦁ non-small-cell⦁ ⦁ lung⦁ ⦁ cancer:⦁ ⦁ current⦁ ⦁ status⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ future⦁ ⦁ implications,⦁ ⦁ Cancer⦁ ⦁ Treat. ⦁ Rev. 38 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 36⦁ –⦁ 53.
W.D.⦁ ⦁ Travis,⦁ ⦁ E.⦁ ⦁ Brambilla,⦁ ⦁ H.K.⦁ ⦁ Müller-Hermelink,⦁ ⦁ C.C.⦁ ⦁ Harris,⦁ ⦁ Pathology⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ genet- ⦁ ics tumors of the lung, pleura, thymus and heart, World Health Organisation ⦁ Classi⦁ fi⦁ cation⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ Tumours,⦁ ⦁ World⦁ ⦁ Health⦁ ⦁ Organisation,⦁ ⦁ 2004,⦁ ⦁ p.⦁ ⦁ 341.
C.J.⦁ ⦁ Langer,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Mok,⦁ ⦁ P.E.⦁ ⦁ Postmus,⦁ ⦁ Targeted⦁ ⦁ agents⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ third-/fourth-line⦁ ⦁ treat- ⦁ ment of patients with advanced (stage III/IV) non-small cell lung cancer ⦁ (NSCLC), Cancer Treat. Rev. 39 (3) (2013)⦁ ⦁ 252⦁ –⦁ 260.
I. Petersen, The morphological and molecular diagnosis of lung cancer, Dtsch. ⦁ Arztebl. Int. 108 (2011)⦁ ⦁ 525⦁ –⦁ 531.
D. Gompelmann, R. Eberhardt, F.J. Herth, Advanced malignant lung disease: what ⦁ the specialist can offer, Respiration 82 (2011)⦁ ⦁ 111⦁ –⦁ 123.
T.⦁ ⦁ Iwasa,⦁ ⦁ I.⦁ ⦁ Okamoto,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Suzuki,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Nakahara,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Yamanaka,⦁ ⦁ E.⦁ ⦁ Hatashita,⦁ ⦁ Y.⦁ ⦁ Yamada,
M. Fukuoka, K. Ono, K. Nakagawa, Radiosensitizing effect of YM155, a novel small-molecule survivin suppressant, in non-small cell lung cancer cell lines, Clin. Cancer Res. 14 (2008) 6496–6504.
T.⦁ ⦁ Iwasa,⦁ ⦁ I.⦁ ⦁ Okamoto,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Takezawa,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Yamanaka,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Nakahara,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Kita,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Koutoku,
M. Sasamata, E. Hatashita, Y. Yamada, K. Kuwata, M. Fukuoka, K. Nakagawa, Marked anti-tumour activity of the combination of YM155, a novel survivin sup- pressant, and platinum-based drugs, Br. J. Cancer 103 (2010) 36–42.
T. Nakahara, K. Yamanaka, S. Hatakeyama, A. Kita, M. Takeuchi, I. Kinoyama, A. ⦁ Matsuhisa,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Nakano,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Shishido,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Koutoku,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Sasamata,⦁ ⦁ YM155,⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ novel⦁ ⦁ survivin ⦁ suppressant, ⦁ enhances ⦁ taxane-induced ⦁ apoptosis ⦁ and ⦁ tumor regression ⦁ in a ⦁ human ⦁ Calu⦁ ⦁ 6⦁ ⦁ lung⦁ ⦁ cancer⦁ ⦁ xenograft⦁ ⦁ model,⦁ ⦁ Anticancer⦁ ⦁ Drugs⦁ ⦁ 22⦁ ⦁ (2011)⦁ ⦁ 454⦁ –⦁ 462.

S⦁ .⦁ ⦁ Sun,⦁ ⦁ J.H.⦁ ⦁ Schiller,⦁ ⦁ A.F.⦁ ⦁ Gazdar,⦁ ⦁ Lung⦁ ⦁ cancer⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ never⦁ ⦁ smokers⦁ ⦁ —⦁ ⦁ a⦁ ⦁ different⦁ ⦁ disease, ⦁ Nat. Rev. Cancer 7 (2007)⦁ ⦁ 778⦁ –⦁ 790.
A.F.⦁ ⦁ Gazdar,⦁ ⦁ Activating⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ resistance⦁ ⦁ mutations⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ EGFR⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ non-small-cell⦁ ⦁ lung ⦁ cancer:⦁ ⦁ role⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ clinical⦁ ⦁ response⦁ ⦁ to⦁ ⦁ EGFR⦁ ⦁ tyrosine⦁ ⦁ kinase⦁ ⦁ inhibitors,⦁ ⦁ Oncogene⦁ ⦁ 28 ⦁ (Suppl. 1) (2009)⦁ ⦁ S24⦁ –⦁ S31.
A.⦁ ⦁ Tartarone,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Lazzari,⦁ ⦁ R.⦁ ⦁ Lerose,⦁ ⦁ V.⦁ ⦁ Conteduca,⦁ ⦁ G.⦁ ⦁ Improta,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Zupa,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Bulotta,⦁ ⦁ M. ⦁ Aieta, V. Gregorc, Mechanisms of resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase⦁ ⦁ inhibitors ⦁ ge⦁ fi⦁ tinib/erlotinib and to ALK inhibitor crizotinib, Lung Cancer 81 (3) (2013) ⦁ 328⦁ –⦁ 336.
K. Okamoto, I. Okamoto, E. Hatashita, K. Kuwata, H. Yamaguchi, A. Kita, K. ⦁ Yamanaka, M. Ono, K. Nakagawa, Overcoming erlotinib resistance in EGFR ⦁ mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer cells by targeting survivin, Mol. ⦁ Cancer Ther. 11 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 204⦁ –⦁ 213.
K. Okamoto, I. Okamoto, W. Okamoto, K. Tanaka, K. Takezawa, K. Kuwata, H. ⦁ Yamaguchi,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Nishio,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Nakagawa,⦁ ⦁ Role⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ EGFR⦁ ⦁ inhibitor-induced ⦁ ap- ⦁ optosis in non-small cell lung cancers ⦁ positive ⦁ for EGFR mutations, Cancer Res. 70 ⦁ (2010)⦁ ⦁ 10402⦁ –⦁ 10410.
R.⦁ ⦁ Roskoski⦁ ⦁ Jr.,⦁ ⦁ The⦁ ⦁ preclinical⦁ ⦁ pro⦁ fi⦁ le⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ crizotinib⦁ ⦁ for⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ treatment⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ non-small-cell ⦁ lung cancer ⦁ and ⦁ other neoplastic disorders, ⦁ Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 8 (9) ⦁ (2013) ⦁ 1165⦁ –⦁ 1179.
S.O.⦁ ⦁ Lee,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Andey,⦁ ⦁ U.H.⦁ ⦁ Jin,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Kim,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Singh,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Safe,⦁ ⦁ The⦁ ⦁ nuclear⦁ ⦁ receptor⦁ ⦁ TR3⦁ ⦁ reg- ⦁ ulates mTORC1 signaling in lung cancer cells expressing wild-type p53, Oncogene ⦁ 31 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 3265⦁ –⦁ 3276.
N.⦁ ⦁ Haruki,⦁ ⦁ K.S.⦁ ⦁ Kawaguchi,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Eichenberger,⦁ ⦁ P.P.⦁ ⦁ Massion,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Gonzalez,⦁ ⦁ A.F.⦁ ⦁ Gazdar,
J.D. Minna, D.P. Carbone, T.P. Dang, Cloned fusion product from a rare t(15;19)(q13.2;p13.1) inhibit S phase in vitro, J. Med. Genet. 42 (2005) 558–564.
N. Reynoird, B.E. Schwartz, M. Delvecchio, K. Sadoul, D. Meyers, C. Mukherjee, C. ⦁ Caron,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Kimura,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Rousseaux,⦁ ⦁ P.A.⦁ ⦁ Cole,⦁ ⦁ D.⦁ ⦁ Panne,⦁ ⦁ C.A.⦁ ⦁ French,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Khochbin,⦁ ⦁ Onco- ⦁ genesis by ⦁ sequestration ⦁ of CBP/p300 in transcriptionally inactive hyperacetylated ⦁ chromatin domains, EMBO J. 29 (2010)⦁ ⦁ 2943⦁ –⦁ 2952.
C.G.A.R.⦁ ⦁ Network,⦁ ⦁ Comprehensive⦁ ⦁ genomic⦁ ⦁ characterization⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ squamous⦁ ⦁ cell⦁ ⦁ lung ⦁ cancers, Nature 489 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 519⦁ –⦁ 525.
M.⦁ ⦁ Peifer,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Fernandez-Cuesta,⦁ ⦁ M.L.⦁ ⦁ Sos,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ George,⦁ ⦁ D.⦁ ⦁ Seidel,⦁ ⦁ L.H.⦁ ⦁ Kasper,⦁ ⦁ D.⦁ ⦁ Plenker,
F. Leenders, R. Sun, T. Zander, R. Menon, M. Koker, I. Dahmen, C. Muller, V. Di Cerbo,
H.U. Schildhaus, J. Altmuller, I. Baessmann, C. Becker, B. de Wilde, J. Vandesompele,
D. Bohm, S. Ansen, F. Gabler, I. Wilkening, S. Heynck, J.M. Heuckmann, X. Lu, S.L. Carter, K. Cibulskis, S. Banerji, G. Getz, K.S. Park, D. Rauh, C. Grutter, M. Fischer, L. Pasqualucci, G. Wright, Z. Wainer, P. Russell, I. Petersen, Y. Chen, E. Stoelben, C. Ludwig, P. Schnabel, H. Hoffmann, T. Muley, M. Brockmann, W. Engel-Riedel, L.A. Muscarella, V.M. Fazio, H. Groen, W. Timens, H. Sietsma, E. Thunnissen, E. Smit,
D.A. Heideman, P.J. Snijders, F. Cappuzzo, C. Ligorio, S. Damiani, J. Field, S. Solberg,
O.T. Brustugun, M. Lund-Iversen, J. Sanger, J.H. Clement, A. Soltermann, H. Moch,
W. Weder, B. Solomon, J.C. Soria, P. Validire, B. Besse, E. Brambilla, C. Brambilla, S. Lantuejoul, P. Lorimier, P.M. Schneider, M. Hallek, W. Pao, M. Meyerson, J. Sage, J. Shendure, R. Schneider, R. Buttner, J. Wolf, P. Nurnberg, S. Perner, L.C. Heukamp,
P.K. Brindle, S. Haas, R.K. Thomas, Integrative genome analyses identify key somatic driver mutations of small-cell lung cancer, Nat. Genet. 44 (2012) 1104–1110.
B.⦁ ⦁ Blum,⦁ ⦁ O.⦁ ⦁ Bar-Nur,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Golan-Lev,⦁ ⦁ N.⦁ ⦁ Benvenisty,⦁ ⦁ The⦁ ⦁ anti-apoptotic⦁ ⦁ gene⦁ ⦁ survivin ⦁ c⦁ ontributes to teratoma formation by human embryonic stem cells, Nat. ⦁ B⦁ iotechnol. 27 (2009)⦁ ⦁ 281⦁ –⦁ 287.
M⦁ .⦁ O⦁ .⦁ ⦁ L⦁ e⦁ e⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ S⦁ .⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ M⦁ o⦁ o⦁ n⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ C⦁ .⦁ ⦁ J⦁ e⦁ o⦁ ng,⦁ ⦁ J⦁ .⦁ Y.⦁ ⦁ Y⦁ i⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ T⦁ .⦁ H⦁ .⦁ ⦁ L⦁ e⦁ e⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ S⦁ .⦁ H⦁ .⦁ ⦁ S⦁ h⦁ im,⦁ ⦁ Y⦁ .⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ R⦁ h⦁ e⦁ e⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ S⦁ .⦁ H⦁ .⦁ ⦁ L⦁ e⦁ e⦁ ,⦁ ⦁ S⦁ .⦁ J⦁ . ⦁ Oh,⦁ ⦁ M.Y.⦁ ⦁ Lee,⦁ ⦁ M.J.⦁ ⦁ Han,⦁ ⦁ Y.S.⦁ ⦁ Cho,⦁ ⦁ H.M.⦁ ⦁ Chung,⦁ ⦁ K.S.⦁ ⦁ Kim,⦁ ⦁ H.J.⦁ ⦁ Cha,⦁ ⦁ Inhibition⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ plurip- ⦁ otent stem cell-derived teratoma formation by small molecules, Proc. Natl. Acad. ⦁ S⦁ ci. U. S. A. 110 (35) (2013)⦁ ⦁ E3281⦁ –⦁ E3290.
B.E.⦁ ⦁ Shan,⦁ ⦁ M.X.⦁ ⦁ Wang,⦁ ⦁ R.Q.⦁ ⦁ Li,⦁ ⦁ Quercetin⦁ ⦁ inhibit⦁ ⦁ human⦁ ⦁ SW480⦁ ⦁ colon⦁ ⦁ cancer⦁ ⦁ growth ⦁ in association with inhibition of cyclin D1 and survivin expression through ⦁ W⦁ nt/beta-catenin⦁ ⦁ signaling⦁ ⦁ pathway,⦁ ⦁ Cancer⦁ ⦁ Invest.⦁ ⦁ 27⦁ ⦁ (2009)⦁ ⦁ 604⦁ –⦁ 612.
P.C. Kuo, H.F. Liu, J.I. Chao, Survivin and p53 modulate quercetin-induced cell ⦁ growth inhibition and apoptosis in human lung carcinoma cells, J. Biol. Chem. ⦁ 2⦁ 79 (2004)⦁ ⦁ 55875⦁ –⦁ 55885.
K.⦁ ⦁ Polyak,⦁ ⦁ W.C.⦁ ⦁ Hahn,⦁ ⦁ Roots⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ stems:⦁ ⦁ stem⦁ ⦁ cells⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ cancer,⦁ ⦁ Nat.⦁ ⦁ Med.⦁ ⦁ 12⦁ ⦁ (2006) ⦁ 2⦁ 96⦁ –⦁ 300.
H.P.⦁ ⦁ Erba,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Sayar,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Juckett,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Lahn,⦁ ⦁ V.⦁ ⦁ Andre,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Callies,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Schmidt,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Kadam,⦁ ⦁ J.T. ⦁ B⦁ randt, D. Van Bockstaele, M. Andreeff, Safety and pharmacokinetics of the anti- ⦁ sense oligonucleotide (ASO) LY2181308 as a single-agent or in combination with ⦁ idarubicin and cytarabine in patients with refractory or relapsed acute myeloid ⦁ l⦁ eukemia (AML), Invest. New Drugs 31 (2013)⦁ ⦁ 1023⦁ –⦁ 1034.
K. Miura, W. Fujibuchi, K. Ishida, T. Naitoh, H. Ogawa, T. Ando, N. Yazaki, K. ⦁ Watanabe,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Haneda,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Shibata,⦁ ⦁ I.⦁ ⦁ Sasaki,⦁ ⦁ Inhibitor⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ apoptosis⦁ ⦁ protein⦁ ⦁ family⦁ ⦁ as ⦁ diagnos⦁ tic markers and therapeutic targets of colorectal cancer, Surg. Today 41 ⦁ (2011)⦁ ⦁ 175⦁ –⦁ 182.
R.K.⦁ ⦁ Kanwar,⦁ ⦁ C.H.⦁ ⦁ Cheung,⦁ ⦁ J.Y.⦁ ⦁ Chang,⦁ ⦁ J.R.⦁ ⦁ Kanwar,⦁ ⦁ Recent⦁ ⦁ advances⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ anti-survivin ⦁ t⦁ reatments ⦁ for cancer, Curr. Med.⦁ ⦁ Chem. 17 (2010) 1509⦁ –⦁ 1515.
L.⦁ ⦁ Tracey,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Pérez-Rosado,⦁ ⦁ M.J.⦁ ⦁ Artiga,⦁ ⦁ F.I.⦁ ⦁ Camacho,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Rodriguez,⦁ ⦁ N.⦁ ⦁ Martínez,⦁ ⦁ E. ⦁ Ruiz-Ballesteros,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Mollejo,⦁ ⦁ B.⦁ ⦁ Martinez,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Cuadros,⦁ ⦁ J.F.⦁ ⦁ Garcia,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Lawler,⦁ ⦁ M.A. ⦁ Piris,⦁ ⦁ Expression⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ NF-kappaB⦁ ⦁ targets⦁ ⦁ BCL2⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ BIRC5/Survivin⦁ ⦁ characterizes ⦁ small B-cell and aggressive B-cell lymphomas, respectively, J. Pathol. 206 (2005) ⦁ 1⦁ 23⦁ –⦁ 134.
B.D.⦁ ⦁ Cheson,⦁ ⦁ N.L.⦁ ⦁ Bartlett,⦁ ⦁ J.M.⦁ ⦁ Vose,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Lopez-Hernandez,⦁ ⦁ A.L.⦁ ⦁ Seiz,⦁ ⦁ A.T.⦁ ⦁ Keating,⦁ ⦁ S. ⦁ Shamsili, A phase II study of the survivin suppressant YM155 in patients with re- ⦁ f⦁ ractory diffuse large B-cell ⦁ lymphoma, ⦁ Cancer 118 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 3128⦁ –⦁ 3134.
T. Satoh, I. Okamoto, M. Miyazaki, R. Morinaga, A. Tsuya, Y. Hasegawa, M. ⦁ T⦁ erashima,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Ueda,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Fukuoka,⦁ ⦁ Y.⦁ ⦁ Ariyoshi,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Saito,⦁ ⦁ N.⦁ ⦁ Masuda,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Watanabe,⦁ ⦁ T. ⦁ Taguchi, T. Kakihara, Y. Aoyama, Y. Hashimoto, K. Nakagawa, Phase I study of ⦁ YM155, a novel survivin suppressant, in patients with advanced solid tumors, ⦁ Clin. Cancer Res. 15 (2009)⦁ ⦁ 3872⦁ –⦁ 3880.
⦁ G.⦁ ⦁ Giaccone,⦁ ⦁ P.⦁ ⦁ Zatloukal,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Roubec,⦁ ⦁ K.⦁ ⦁ Floor,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Musil,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Kuta,⦁ ⦁ R.J.⦁ ⦁ van⦁ ⦁ Klaveren,⦁ ⦁ S. ⦁ Chaudhary, A. Gunther, S. Shamsili, Multicenter phase II trial of YM155, a ⦁ small-molecule suppressor of survivin, in patients with advanced, refractory, ⦁ non-small-cell lung cancer, J. Clin. Oncol. 27 (2009)⦁ ⦁ 4481⦁ –⦁ 4486.
R.J.⦁ ⦁ Kelly,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Thomas,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Rajan,⦁ ⦁ G.⦁ ⦁ Chun,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Lopez-Chavez,⦁ ⦁ E.⦁ ⦁ Szabo,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Spencer,⦁ ⦁ C.A. ⦁ Carter,⦁ ⦁ U.⦁ ⦁ Guha,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Khozin,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Poondru,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Van⦁ ⦁ Sant,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Keating,⦁ ⦁ S.M.⦁ ⦁ Steinberg,⦁ ⦁ W. ⦁ Figg, G. Giaccone, A phase I/II study of sepantronium bromide (YM155, survivin ⦁ suppressor) with paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with advanced ⦁ non-small-cell⦁ ⦁ lung⦁ ⦁ cancer,⦁ ⦁ Ann.⦁ ⦁ Oncol.⦁ ⦁ 24⦁ ⦁ (10)⦁ ⦁ (2013)⦁ ⦁ 2601⦁ –⦁ 2606.
K.D.⦁ ⦁ Lewis,⦁ ⦁ W.⦁ ⦁ Samlowski,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Ward,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Catlett,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Cranmer,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Kirkwood,⦁ ⦁ D.⦁ ⦁ Lawson,⦁ ⦁ E. ⦁ Whitman, R. Gonzalez, A multi-center phase II evaluation of the small molecule ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ suppressor⦁ ⦁ YM155⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ patients⦁ ⦁ with⦁ ⦁ unresectable⦁ ⦁ stage⦁ ⦁ III⦁ ⦁ or⦁ ⦁ IV⦁ ⦁ melanoma, ⦁ Invest. New Drugs 29 (2011)⦁ ⦁ 161⦁ –⦁ 166.
A.W.⦁ ⦁ Tolcher,⦁ ⦁ D.I.⦁ ⦁ Quinn,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Ferrari,⦁ ⦁ F.⦁ ⦁ Ahmann,⦁ ⦁ G.⦁ ⦁ Giaccone,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Drake,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Keating,⦁ ⦁ J.S. ⦁ de Bono, A phase II study of YM155, a novel small-molecule suppressor of survivin, ⦁ in castration-resistant taxane-pretreated prostate cancer, Ann. Oncol. 23 (2012) ⦁ 968⦁ –⦁ 973.
S.P.⦁ ⦁ Balk,⦁ ⦁ Y.J.⦁ ⦁ Ko,⦁ ⦁ G.J.⦁ ⦁ Bubley,⦁ ⦁ Biology⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ prostate-speci⦁ fi⦁ c⦁ ⦁ antigen,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Clin.⦁ ⦁ Oncol.⦁ ⦁ 21 ⦁ (2003)⦁ ⦁ 383⦁ –⦁ 391.
H. Tang, H. Shao, C. Yu, J. Hou, Mcl-1 downregulation by YM155 contributes to its ⦁ synergistic anti-tumor activities with ABT-263, Biochem. Pharmacol. 82 (2011) ⦁ 1066⦁ –⦁ 1072.
W. Feng, A. Yoshida, T. Ueda, YM155 induces caspase-8 dependent apoptosis ⦁ through⦁ ⦁ downregulation⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ Mcl-1⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ human⦁ ⦁ leukemia⦁ ⦁ cells,⦁ ⦁ Biochem. ⦁ Biophys. Res. Commun. 435 (2013)⦁ ⦁ 52⦁ –⦁ 57.
Y.S.⦁ ⦁ Na,⦁ ⦁ S.J.⦁ ⦁ Yang,⦁ ⦁ S.M.⦁ ⦁ Kim,⦁ ⦁ K.A.⦁ ⦁ Jung,⦁ ⦁ J.H.⦁ ⦁ Moon,⦁ ⦁ J.S.⦁ ⦁ Shin,⦁ ⦁ D.H.⦁ ⦁ Yoon,⦁ ⦁ Y.S.⦁ ⦁ Hong,⦁ ⦁ M.H. ⦁ Ryu,⦁ ⦁ J.L.⦁ ⦁ Lee,⦁ ⦁ J.S.⦁ ⦁ Lee,⦁ ⦁ T.W.⦁ ⦁ Kim,⦁ ⦁ YM155⦁ ⦁ induces⦁ ⦁ EGFR⦁ ⦁ suppression⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ pancreatic⦁ ⦁ can- ⦁ cer cells, PLoS One 7 (2012)⦁ ⦁ e38625.
Z.⦁ ⦁ Song,⦁ ⦁ X.⦁ ⦁ Yao,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Wu,⦁ ⦁ Direct⦁ ⦁ interaction⦁ ⦁ between⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ Smac/DIABLO⦁ ⦁ is⦁ ⦁ es- ⦁ sential⦁ ⦁ for⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ anti-apoptotic⦁ ⦁ activity⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ during⦁ ⦁ taxol-induced⦁ ⦁ apoptosis, ⦁ J. ⦁ Biol. Chem. 278 (2003)⦁ ⦁ 23130⦁ –⦁ 23140.
O.H. Krämer, S.K. Knauer, D. Zimmermann, R.H. Stauber, T. Heinzel, Histone ⦁ deacetylase ⦁ inhibitors ⦁ and hydroxyurea modulate the cell cycle and ⦁ cooperatively ⦁ induce apoptosis, Oncogene 27 (2008)⦁ ⦁ 732⦁ –⦁ 740.
F. Salehi, K. Kovacs, B.W. Scheithauer, R.V. Lloyd, M. Cusimano, Pituitary ⦁ tumor-transforming ⦁ gene in endocrine and other neoplasms: a review and update, ⦁ Endocr. Relat. Cancer 15 (2008)⦁ ⦁ 721⦁ –⦁ 743.
J.I.⦁ ⦁ Chao,⦁ ⦁ H.F.⦁ ⦁ Liu,⦁ ⦁ The⦁ ⦁ blockage⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ securin⦁ ⦁ expression⦁ ⦁ increases⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ cy- ⦁ tochalasin B-induced cell death and growth inhibition in human cancer cells, Mol. ⦁ Pharmacol. 69 (2006)⦁ ⦁ 154⦁ –⦁ 164.
T.G.⦁ ⦁ Glaros,⦁ ⦁ L.H.⦁ ⦁ Stockwin,⦁ ⦁ M.E.⦁ ⦁ Mullendore,⦁ ⦁ B.⦁ ⦁ Smith,⦁ ⦁ B.L.⦁ ⦁ Morrison,⦁ ⦁ D.L.⦁ ⦁ Newton, ⦁ The ⦁ “⦁ survivin suppressants⦁ ” ⦁ NSC 80467 and YM155 induce a DNA damage re- ⦁ sponse, Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 70 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 207⦁ –⦁ 212.
R.H. Shoemaker, The NCI60 human tumour cell line anticancer drug screen, Nat. ⦁ Rev. Cancer 6 (2006)⦁ ⦁ 813⦁ –⦁ 823.
W.P.⦁ ⦁ Roos,⦁ ⦁ B.⦁ ⦁ Kaina,⦁ ⦁ DNA⦁ ⦁ damage-induced⦁ ⦁ cell⦁ ⦁ death:⦁ ⦁ from⦁ ⦁ speci⦁ fi⦁ c⦁ ⦁ DNA⦁ ⦁ lesions⦁ ⦁ to ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ DNA⦁ ⦁ damage⦁ ⦁ response⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ apoptosis,⦁ ⦁ Cancer⦁ ⦁ Lett.⦁ ⦁ 332⦁ ⦁ (2013)⦁ ⦁ 237⦁ –⦁ 248.
K.L.⦁ ⦁ Cann,⦁ ⦁ G.⦁ ⦁ Dellaire,⦁ ⦁ Heterochromatin⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ DNA⦁ ⦁ damage⦁ ⦁ response:⦁ ⦁ the⦁ ⦁ need⦁ ⦁ to ⦁ relax, ⦁ Biochem. Cell Biol. 89 (2011)⦁ ⦁ 45⦁ –⦁ 60.
G.⦁ ⦁ Capalbo,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Rödel,⦁ ⦁ R.H.⦁ ⦁ Stauber,⦁ ⦁ S.K.⦁ ⦁ Knauer,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Bache,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Kappler,⦁ ⦁ F.⦁ ⦁ Rödel,⦁ ⦁ The ⦁ role of survivin for radiation therapy. Prognostic and predictive factor and thera- ⦁ peutic target, Strahlenther. ⦁ Onkol. ⦁ 183 (2007)⦁ ⦁ 593⦁ –⦁ 599.
G. Capalbo, K. Dittmann, C. Weiss, S. Reichert, E. Hausmann, C. Rödel, F. Rödel, ⦁ Radiation-induced survivin nuclear accumulation is linked to DNA damage repair, ⦁ Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 77 (2010)⦁ ⦁ 226⦁ –⦁ 234.
D.⦁ ⦁ Holmes,⦁ ⦁ Cancer⦁ ⦁ drug⦁ ‘⦁ s⦁ ⦁ survivin⦁ ⦁ suppression⦁ ⦁ called⦁ ⦁ into⦁ ⦁ question,⦁ ⦁ Nat.⦁ ⦁ Med.⦁ ⦁ 18 ⦁ (2012)⦁ ⦁ 842⦁ –⦁ 843.
S.⦁ ⦁ Reichert,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Rödel,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Mirsch,⦁ ⦁ P.N.⦁ ⦁ Harter,⦁ ⦁ M.T.⦁ ⦁ Tomicic,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Mittelbronn,⦁ ⦁ B.⦁ ⦁ Kaina,⦁ ⦁ F. ⦁ Rödel, Survivin inhibition and DNA double-strand break repair: a molecular mech- ⦁ anism to overcome radioresistance in glioblastoma, Radiother. Oncol. 101 (2011) ⦁ 51⦁ –⦁ 58.
X.⦁ ⦁ Ling,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Cao,⦁ ⦁ Q.⦁ ⦁ Cheng,⦁ ⦁ J.T.⦁ ⦁ Keefe,⦁ ⦁ Y.M.⦁ ⦁ Rustum,⦁ ⦁ F.⦁ ⦁ Li,⦁ ⦁ A⦁ ⦁ novel⦁ ⦁ small⦁ ⦁ molecule⦁ ⦁ FL118 ⦁ that selectively inhibits survivin, Mcl-1, XIAP and cIAP2 in a p53-independent ⦁ manner, shows superior antitumor activity, PLoS One⦁ ⦁ 7 (2012) e45571.
T.R.⦁ ⦁ Brown,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Vijarnsorn,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Potts,⦁ ⦁ R.⦁ ⦁ Milner,⦁ ⦁ G.G.⦁ ⦁ Sandor,⦁ ⦁ C.⦁ ⦁ Fryer,⦁ ⦁ Anthracycline⦁ ⦁ in- ⦁ duced cardiac toxicity in pediatric Ewing sarcoma: a longitudinal study, Pediatr. ⦁ Blood Cancer 60 (2013)⦁ ⦁ 842⦁ –⦁ 848.
H.⦁ ⦁ Qin,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Yu,⦁ ⦁ T.⦁ ⦁ Qing,⦁ ⦁ Y.⦁ ⦁ Liu,⦁ ⦁ Y.⦁ ⦁ Zhao,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Cai,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Li,⦁ ⦁ Z.⦁ ⦁ Song,⦁ ⦁ X.⦁ ⦁ Qu,⦁ ⦁ P.⦁ ⦁ Zhou,⦁ ⦁ J.⦁ ⦁ Wu,⦁ ⦁ M. ⦁ Ding, H. Deng, Regulation of apoptosis and differentiation by p53 in human embry- ⦁ onic stem cells, J. Biol. Chem. 282 (2007)⦁ ⦁ 5842⦁ –⦁ 5852.
A.J.⦁ ⦁ Smith,⦁ ⦁ N.G.⦁ ⦁ Nelson,⦁ ⦁ S.⦁ ⦁ Oommen,⦁ ⦁ K.A.⦁ ⦁ Hartjes,⦁ ⦁ C.D.⦁ ⦁ Folmes,⦁ ⦁ A.⦁ ⦁ Terzic,⦁ ⦁ T.J.⦁ ⦁ Nelson, ⦁ Apoptotic susceptibility to DNA damage of pluripotent stem cells facilitates phar- ⦁ macologic⦁ ⦁ purging⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ teratoma⦁ ⦁ risk,⦁ ⦁ Stem⦁ ⦁ Cells⦁ ⦁ Transl.⦁ ⦁ Med.⦁ ⦁ 1⦁ ⦁ (2012)⦁ ⦁ 709⦁ –⦁ 718.
Y.L. Yao, W.M. Yang, Nuclear proteins: promising targets for cancer drugs, Curr. ⦁ Cancer Drug Targets 5 (2005)⦁ ⦁ 595⦁ –⦁ 610.
H.⦁ ⦁ Yagata,⦁ ⦁ Y.⦁ ⦁ Kajiura,⦁ ⦁ H.⦁ ⦁ Yamauchi,⦁ ⦁ Current⦁ ⦁ strategy⦁ ⦁ for⦁ ⦁ triple-negative⦁ ⦁ breast⦁ ⦁ can- ⦁ cer:⦁ ⦁ appropriate⦁ ⦁ combination⦁ ⦁ of⦁ ⦁ surgery,⦁ ⦁ radiation,⦁ ⦁ and⦁ ⦁ chemotherapy,⦁ ⦁ Breast⦁ ⦁ Can- ⦁ cer 18 (2011)⦁ ⦁ 165⦁ –⦁ 173.
T.S.⦁ ⦁ Mok,⦁ ⦁ Personalized⦁ ⦁ medicine⦁ ⦁ in⦁ ⦁ lung⦁ ⦁ cancer:⦁ ⦁ what⦁ ⦁ we⦁ ⦁ need⦁ ⦁ to⦁ ⦁ know,⦁ ⦁ Nat.⦁ ⦁ Rev. ⦁ Clin. Oncol. 8 (2011)⦁ ⦁ 661⦁ –⦁ 668.
C.L.⦁ ⦁ Arteaga,⦁ ⦁ M.X.⦁ ⦁ Sliwkowski,⦁ ⦁ C.K.⦁ ⦁ Osborne,⦁ ⦁ E.A.⦁ ⦁ Perez,⦁ ⦁ F.⦁ ⦁ Puglisi,⦁ ⦁ L.⦁ ⦁ Gianni,⦁ ⦁ Treat- ⦁ ment of HER2-positive breast cancer: current status and future perspectives, Nat. ⦁ Rev. Clin. Oncol. 9 (2012)⦁ ⦁ 16⦁ –⦁ 32.
J.B.⦁ ⦁ Hansen,⦁ ⦁ N.⦁ ⦁ Fisker,⦁ ⦁ M.⦁ ⦁ Westergaard,⦁ ⦁ L.S.⦁ ⦁ Kjaerulff,⦁ ⦁ H.F.⦁ ⦁ Hansen,⦁ ⦁ C.A.⦁ ⦁ Thrue,⦁ ⦁ C. ⦁ Rosenbohm, M. Wissenbach, H. Orum, T. Koch, SPC3042: a proapoptotic survivin ⦁ inhibitor, Mol. Cancer Ther. 7 (2008)⦁ ⦁ 2736⦁ –⦁ 2745.